Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BALA TO TRAWSFYNYDD HIGHWAYS (LIVERPOOL CORPORATION CONTRIBUTION) BILL

BLACKFRIARS BRIDGEHEAD IMPROVEMENTS BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

CITY OF LONDON (GUILD CHURCHES) BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

CROYDON CORPORATION BILL

DEVON WATER BILL

HASTINGS PIER BILL

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ETC.) BILL

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

REGISTRATION OF CLUBS (LONDON) BILL

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SAINT MARTIN'S PARISH CHURCH BIRMINGHAM BILL

ST. PETER'S CHURCH NOTTINGHAM (BROAD MARSH BURIAL GROUND) BILL

SAINT PETER UPPER THAMES STREET CHURCHYARD BILL

SAINT STEPHEN BRISTOL (BURIAL GROUNDS ETC.) BILL

SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL TYNE TUNNEL BILL

Read a Second tune and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

History of Parliament

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the present plans of the History of Parliament Trust for investigating, writing and publishing the History of Parliament, indicating the scope of the proposed work, in view of the recent Report of the Public Accounts Committee about it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): The limited scope of this project, as the trustees are at present able to foresee it, is indicated in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee to which the hon. and learned Member refers. It lies with Parliament to decide whether any change should be made in the existing arrangements which govern the work of the Trust.

Mr. Hughes: As the work is designed to be a permanent record of great national and international importance, not only for our own generation but for future generations, will the Chancellor look into the limitation which he has mentioned and see that what emerges is worthy of the work?

Mr. Amory: I have no control over the policy or the administration of the trustees. So far, I think, the only action that has been taken has been to promise them a grant of £360,000 over twenty years.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is to be a history of this Parliament or a history


of the British Parliament with its antecedents in Scotland and England?

Mr. Amory: The right hon. Gentleman had better get into touch with the trustees on that point. I am not quite sure what limits they are going to set themselves in the scope of their work.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he is aware that recent advertisements by the History of Parliament Trust for Scottish assistants to work on the forthcoming History of Parliament require that such Scottish assistants must live in London, and that the remuneration offered is inadequate; and why these limitations are imposed on workers much of whose research work must necessarily be done in Scotland;
(2) why the Scottish aspects of the History of the British Parliament, now in the hands of the History of Parliament Trust, are to be limited so as to begin with the year 1714.

Mr. Amory: The administration and policy of the Trust are the responsibility of the trustees, to whom I must therefore refer the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: As to Question No. 2, is it not essential that in a work of such great importance assistants of the very highest ability and training should be employed and that they should be adequately remunerated, as they are not being adequately remunerated at present?

Mr. Amory: That is precisely a matter for the trustees, because it falls within the policy and administration of their work.

Mr. Osborne: Since this complaint has been made for the last 350 years, ever since James VI came to London, that Scots in London have not been adequately paid, can my right hon. Friend explain why they are still coming to London in their tens of thousands?

Mr. Amory: I think the rate of their coming is rather higher than my hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Driberg.

Mr. Hughes: May I not put a supplementary question on Question No. 3? Am I not entitled to a supplementary question on Question No. 3?

Mr. Speaker: It is not a question of entitlement, as the hon. and learned Member knows.

Mr. Hughes: Surely I am entitled to put a supplementary question to Question No. 3. Is the Chancellor aware that Scottish history did not begin—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman apparently did not hear me. I called the next Question.

Royal Fine Art Commission (Regional Committees)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has received from the Royal Fine Art Commission to the suggestion that there shall be regional committees of the Commission.

Mr. Amory: The Commission has informed me that it doubts whether regional committees would provide the best means of dealing with the problem to which the hon. Member has called attention.

Mr. Driberg: What does the Corn-mission think would be the best means?

Mr. Amory: I think the Commission feels that the matters with which it is dealing do not lend themselves to devolution of responsibility.

Mr. Driberg: Apart from devolution of responsibility, does the Commission at any rate have adequate arrangements for being fully informed. in the various districts and regions, about the innumerable acts of vandalism which are occurring?

Mr. Amory: I understand the Commission feels that the present arrangements are broadly satisfactory.

Sir G. Nicholson: Has not the Royal Fine Art Commission expressed anxiety about the gradual elimination of the scenic beauties and amenities of this country? Can it be said that the Commission is satisfied with the position? Is there not some room for more local activity?

Mr. Amory: That is a matter for the Commission. I did not say that the Commission was satisfied with the position, but I understand that it is broadly satisfied with the scope of its organisation and arrangements.

Foreign Importers' Drafts

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the continuing loss of foreign currency earnings and the long term damage to London as an international financial centre, he will reconsider his refusal to allow again the use of foreign importers' drafts.

Mr. Amory: I will certainly keep the possibility of lifting the ban on refinance credits in mind. I cannot, however, at present give any indication of when this may prove practicable.

Mr. Bennett: I am grateful for the limited hope which the Chancellor has held out today, but does he not see something a little odd in a situation of virtually complete convertibility of sterling for foreigners leaving the way open for forward currency speculations, if people should be so foolish or shortsighted as to resort to it, while at the same time continuing to refuse to return to a long-standing traditional method of financing genuine international trading transactions?

Mr. Amory: One has to keep this matter in perspective, and, as is usual in these matters, there is a balance of considerations which should be remembered.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order. In view of the nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Farming Losses

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the recent Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Appropriation Accounts, indicating that the total amount of farming losses allowed against taxation in one year was about £13½ million, he will take steps to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income that the term "husbandry" in Section 526 of the Income Tax Act, 1952, should be limited to that carried on on a commercial basis, with a view to the realisation of profits.

Mr. Amory: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion, but I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Cronin: While it is appreciated that the Chancellor cannot anticipate his Budget statement, in the course of his secret lucubrations in the next few months will he examine this serious and extensive abuse of tax law and its very deleterious effect on agriculture?

Mr. Amory: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion and I will also note his further observations.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many farmers not solely engaged in agriculture claim relief of taxation on account of losses sustained arising from farming.

Mr. Amory: I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not surprised at that. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there are quite a number of people who engage in this practice and purchase farms, though they are not interested in agriculture, only for the purpose of gaining because of losses? Is it not time we stopped this racket, this jiggery-pokery, on the part of a number of people, of which he is well aware?

Mr. Amory: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to use the expression "jiggery-pokery" in connection with all farmers who have some other commercial activity as well as their farms.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a bit of a racket for a person to purchase a farm, although not interested in agriculture, solely for the purpose of gaining because of the losses that are sustained? Is not this a most undesirable practice?

Mr. Amory: I should want full details of the cases which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind before I should care to express an opinion.

Distribution Costs

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will appoint a committee to investigate costs of distribution, both in money and manpower, and to make recommendations for reducing the gap between production costs and the prices paid by the public: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amory: I doubt whether such a committee would produce useful results on such a general matter. The best way of ensuring efficiency and economy in distribution costs is through healthy fair competition, and that is what we are anxious to encourage.

Mr. Osborne: Since out of 23¼million people engaged in civilian employment 7 million are in the distributive, finance and miscellaneous groups, and in view of the staggering differences in some trades between factory prices and shop prices, does not my right hon. Friend think that something might be done to narrow those gaps and so reduce the cost of living?

Mr. Amory: I am all for a great many things being done to narrow those gaps as far as possible, but what I take leave to doubt is whether the setting up of a committee to consider a very general matter such as this would produce specific results.

Capital Gains

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, bearing in mind that about £5,000 million capital profits were made on industrial shares in 1959, he will institute an inquiry as to the desirability of introducing a capital gains tax.

Mr. Amory: The arguments for and against this form of tax were examined at length by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income which reported in 1955.

Mr. Cronin: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that it was in the early 1950s that the Royal Commission made this investigation and that there was also a minority report which came out very strongly in favour of a tax on capital profits? Will the Chancellor consider introducing a tax on capital profits, as it seems very inequitable that many workers by hand and brain should be taxed quite savagely while there remains a privileged small minority of shareholders and large property owners who are completely immune from taxation on their gains?

Mr. Amory: Important matters of that kind must be kept under review, but the hon. Member has quoted from one period and I ask him to remember that

there are apt to be periods when capital losses are apt to be just as frequent as capital profits.

Mr. H. Wilson: Does not the Chancellor recognise that in the present state of industrial relations, with some extremely low wages being paid, the vast unearned capital gains which have been made are highly provocative, particularly since they do not bear tax? Secondly, in his capacity as guardian of the public revenue, will he recognise that all experience of the past few years and past few Budgets shows that nothing causes more depredations of the revenue received by the Treasury than this totally vicious taxation anomaly as between income and capital and the ingenious ways of getting out of income into capital?

Mr. Amory: I will take note of what the right bon. Gentleman has said.

Tax Reliefs (Home Helps)

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will extend the provisions of Section 218 of the Finance Act, 1952, to enable a married man with children, whose wife is totally incapacitated by infirmity for the whole of the year of claim, to obtain tax reliefs for payments for a home help or the wages of a non-resident domestic employee.

Mr. Amory: I have noted my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, but I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, among the many families in which the wife is so incapacitated that permanent domestic help has been and will indefinitely be necessary for many years, the financial burden falls most heavily on the poorer families who, because of lack of accommodation or other reasons, are not able to employ resident domestic help? In considering his Budget, will he see whether he cannot do something to help those people?

Mr. Amory: I am rather chary about agreeing to anything at this time of the year, except the importance of my saying as little as possible on almost everything, but I will take note of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.

Mr. Wilson: Since we have pressed this and similar Amendments to Finance Bills in recent years, will the Chancellor consult some of his hon. Friends on the possibility that they might vote for some of those Amendments to future Finance Bills instead of merely raising the matter at Question Time?

Government Offices (Location)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what immediate plans he has for moving Government offices from London to those places where unemployment is high or imminent; and when he last discussed this question with the appropriate Civil Service staff side representatives.

Mr. Amory: A programme for the removal of certain Government offices from London was agreed with the National Staff Side and is still being completed; and the choice of new locations under this programme, or in connection with any other move of a Government office, takes account of local employment situations. The dispersal policy was last the subject of correspondence with the National Staff Side in 1958.

Mr. Boyden: Is the Chancellor not aware that on 18th January there were 1,342 juveniles unemployed in the County of Durham? Many of them were boys. One of the reasons is the shortage of suitable variations in employment. In addition, the figure conceals the misemployment of young people who are doing jobs below their talents. Does the Chancellor not think that the Government should set an example in this respect to encourage private industry to bring offices to the County of Durham?

Mr. Amory: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of dispersal where one can achieve it, but the dispersal of whole Government Departments raises fairly long-term problems that have to be looked at quite a time ahead.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that there is high unemployment in Falmouth? We have a wonderful climate which I am sure civil servants would appreciate.

Mr. Amory: The possibility of moving the Treasury to Falmouth might make a personal appeal to me.

Stamp Duties (Share Transfers)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his latest estimates of the yield from stamp duties on share transfers.

Mr. Amory: My Budget estimate that stamp duties as a whole would yield £68 million, included an estimate of £35 million for the yield of stamp duties on share transfers. It is clear that this estimate will be exceeded, but I am not in a position to say by how much.

Mr. Grimond: I am not asking the Chancellor to anticipate anything about anything, but would he notice that some reduction of these duties would be a great incentive to the wider sharing of property and shares in this country?

Mr. Amory: Once again I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said, which I think is very similar to what he said at this time last year.

Prices

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he has had from industry to his campaign for lower prices.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the results of his recent appeals for lower prices.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent his appeal for lower prices has been successful.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Members for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) and Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) on 26th January.

Mr. Jay: But was that answer not very disappointing? As the Chancellor has made a large number of appeals in the last six months on this point, is he really satisfied with the response so far? Can he give any concrete examples of reductions in prices?

Mr. Amory: I am never satisfied. If I had time I could give concrete examples. What I feel fairly satisfied about is that my statements have had some effect in maintaining the stability of the price level which we are still enjoying.

Mr. Jay: Is the Chancellor aware that all my hon. Friends are anxious that he should take time now to give us some of those examples?

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Chancellor not be perfectly frank with the House and tell us what we have all read, that employers have given him dusty answers in his appeal for price reductions? Is he not aware that, according to the cost of living index, far from prices coming down, they have gone up in recent months? Will he give some indication as to when he thinks the time will be more favourable than the present for price reductions to be made?

Mr. Amory: I certainly do not consider that I have had dusty answers from the industrial organisations which I have approached. My object has been to encourage the maintenance of the present stability. I believe that my statements have made increases less common than they otherwise would have been, and we are still enjoying stability. I did not ask for a price freeze any more than I have asked for a wage freeze. Nor did I ask for a reduction in prices right across the board. What I did ask for was that those who were succeeding in getting benefits from increased productivity should share those benefits with the consumer.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain in the simplest possible terms how his campaign for lower prices is assisted by raising the Bank Rate? Does not that set a bad example to other people who want to raise things too?

Mr. Amory: I think one of the reasons, among others, for raising the Bank Rate was to maintain our present stability in prices.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: What is the use of appealing to industry to lower its prices when fuel and power, on which the ultimate cost of everything depends, is supplied by nationalised industries which keep raising their charges? Should not the nationalised industries set an example in this matter by increasing production and lowering their prices?

Mr. Amory: I must remind my hon. and gallant Friend that what I was

asking for was that the benefits arising from increases in productivity should be shared. The first thing that has to be achieved is an increase in productivity.

Mr. Nabarro: Would not my right hon. Friend recognise that he personally could make the most massive contribution to the lowering of prices by joining the "Nabarro Lobby" on Purchase Tax?

Mr. Wilson: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer has explained to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) that the prices of the nationalised industries have risen a good deal less than those of private industry and has dealt suitably with his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), will he answer this question? In view of the very big increase in profits in the past few months and the obvious expectations of still further increases in profits as shown by the present level of equity prices on the Stock Exchange, does not the Chancellor feel that part of these increased profits ought to be passed on to the consumer in the shape of lower prices?

Mr. Amory: That is exactly what I said: I said that the benefits of increased productivity should be shared with the consumer.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for encouraging lower prices.

Mr. Amory: In a free economy, the main influence in any process of lowering prices must be the forces of competition. The Government can contribute by regulating the level of demand so as to avoid overloading the economy, and this is my steady objective. Success, however, will depend, on the co-operation of other sections of the community. For this reason, I have urged managements to make full use of opportunities to reduce their prices and have pointed out the dangers of an unrestrained pursuit of higher wages and salaries and profits. We have succeeded in preserving price stability for nearly two years now, and I propose to continue the policies which have been followed in that time.

Mr. Dodds: As now after 8½ years of this Government prices are at an all-time high record, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether it is his ambition


to stabilise them at that all-time record, or will he say when the promises of reduced prices are to take effect? Cannot he do any better than he has done?

Mr. Amory: I am always hoping to do still better, but I think we must not underrate the value of the stability in prices which has been a marked feature of the economy for almost two years.

Purchase Tax

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now considered the recommendations made to him by the National Union of Manufacturers regarding the reduction and simplification of Purchase Tax; and whether he will now make a statement concerning his future purchase tax intentions.

Mr. Amory: I must once again remind my hon. Friend that I cannot anticipate my Budget decisions.

Mr. Nabarro: Has my right hon. Friend observed the choice of words of the National Union of Manufacturers,
…That the reduction and simplification of Purchase Tax must remain an objective of all Budgets until the total abolition of this most undesirable tax can be achieved.
Is it not significant that 6,000 British manufacturers have now lined themselves up behind me in my lobby?

Mr. Amory: I cannot anticipate this coming Budget or any future Budget statements.

Mr. Wilson: As this is the beginning of the season when the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) keeps putting down these Questions, can we have his assurance that he will line himself up behind us in the Lobby when we press these things on the Finance Bill?

Mr. Nabarro: That is inciting me to insubordination.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the concern felt by violinists that the bow-hair for their instruments is not subject to Purchase Tax when purchased in a tail of horse-hair, but when such bow-hair has been wound into a small hank adequate for re-hairing one bow, such hank attracts Purchase Tax at 25 per cent.; why a horse-hair hank is

taxed, whereas a horse-hair tail is untaxed; and, having regard to the discrimination which is caused against amateur musicians, notably learners, whether he will restore equality by removing all bow-hair for violins from the Purchase Tax Schedules.

Mr. Amory: A tail of horse-hair is no more than raw material; a hank of such hair selected and prepared for repair of a violin bow is an accessory to a musical instrument. I am not aware that this sensible distinction has given rise to any concern or confusion except in my hon. Friend's mind.

Mr. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend explain to the House his special interest in tax fiddling? Is it really desirable that he should continue discrimination in this minute fashion between two articles which for all practical purposes are exactly the same? Is he not adding confusion to confusion with each successive Budget?

Mr. Amory: I am very glad to note that my hon. Friend has an interest in violins. I thought that he belonged to the wind rather than the string section.

Mr. Speaker: We now seem to be busy with the slow movement.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the stand upon which a saxophonist rests his saxophone is subject to Purchase Tax at 25 per cent. as is the saxophone, whereas the stand upon which a saxophonist rests his musical score is not subject to tax; why this discrimination exists as between stands for the saxophones and stands for the musical scores; and whether he will redress the grievances of saxophonists in this regard by abolition of all Purchase Tax on all stands whether used for saxophone rests or for musical scores.

Mr. Amory: The charge under Group 19 applies to musical instruments and accessories thereto. A stand for an instrument is clearly an accessory to that instrument. Saxophone players rejoice, I am sure, that reason has been found not to tax their music stands as well.

Mr. Nabarro: Would not they rejoice far more if all the stands they used were removed from the incidence of Purchase Tax? How does the Chancellor account


for this brainwave of bureaucratic Bumbledom inside the Customs and Excise Department which is now even seeking to distinguish between wooden stands used by musicians for substantially the same purpose? Is that reasonable?

Mr. Amory: I think it is perfectly reasonable. My hon. Friend, whose vocal powers we have had reason to admire, has overlooked the fact that not all performers are instrumentalists.

Public Works Loan Board

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for the balance of the Public Works Loan Board's outstanding debt to be used as the nucleus of the capital from which the Board could continuously re-lend while at the same time allowing the Board greater freedom in its lending policy.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir. I do not consider that a change is called for in the present policy governing lending by the Public Works Loan Board.

Mr. Irving: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is increasingly urgent to help efficient local authorities who should have greater access to funds at rates of interest more in keeping with the needs of the services they have to undertake? Will he find means to provide greater stability for local government finance, so that they can get away from the tremendous amount of short-term debt being built up which is worrying them a great deal?

Mr. Amory: In regard to the first part of that supplementary question, I do not think the course suggested would be a good one. It would lead to the kind of distortion we knew twelve or thirteen years ago when hon. Members opposite were in charge of our affairs.

Civil Service and Ministerial Salaries

Mr. D. Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will list under each Department of State the number of permanent officials in the Department who are paid more than the Minister in charge.

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, for

each Government Department, the number of civil servants who are paid at a higher rate than the Minister and the number paid at a higher rate than the Parliamentary Secretary or Under-Secretary.

Mr. Amory: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list showing for each Department the number of officials who are paid more than the Minister in charge; the total number of such officials is 52. The extraction of comparable Departmental figures for officials who are paid more than a Parliamentary Secretary would involve extensive inquiries. A rough estimate of the total number of such officials is 4,500.
The Ministerial salaries on which these figures are based do not include the £750 of Parliamentary remuneration.

Mr. Price: In anticipation of my right hon. Friend's Written Reply, will he state whether he knows of any reputable organisation in which the executive head is paid less than his subordinates, or is this House to interpret the present salary structure as symbolic of the transfer of power from the political head to the permanent head of a Department?

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend must not provoke me into a discussion of this question. It is not easy to draw a close analogy between Ministers and civil servants in this respect. To take one distinction only, there is quite a difference in the security of tenure between the two.

Mr. H. Wilson: There is obviously no party issue on this question. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one is likely to accuse any hon. Member on this side of the House of an immediate financial interest in the question? Nevertheless, will the Chancellor take very seriously the point which has just been put to him by his hon. Friend? It is an undesirable state of affairs. Will he look into it in the interests of public administration?

Mr. Amory: I agree that there is something in the point. I will take note of what both my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have said.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon Friend also bear in mind the fact


that, if a Minister from a large Department were paid according to ordinary standards of responsibility and the size of his Department, it is probable that Ministers' salaries would be between £15,000 and £20,000 a year?

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend brings a blush to my cheek.

Following is the information:


Departments in which there are permanent officials whose salary Number is greater than that of the Minister in charge
Number of such officials


H.M. Treasury (including sub-Departments)
8


H.M. Customs and Excise
1


Inland Revenue
1


Government Actuary's Department
1


Admiralty
2


Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
1


Air Ministry
1


Ministry of Aviation
3


Colonial Office
1


Commonwealth Relations Office
5


Ministry of Defence
3


Ministry of Education
1


Foreign Office
9


Ministry of Health
2


Home Office
1


Ministry of Housing and Local Government
1


Ministry of Labour
1


Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
1


Post Office
2


Ministry of Power
1


Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
1


Scottish Office
1


Board of Trade
1


Ministry of Transport
1


War Office
1


Ministry of Works
1

British Museum (Staff)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to provide additional staff at the British Museum to deal with the arrears of cataloguing in the Department of Manuscripts.

Mr. Amory: I have authorised the provision, in the next financial year, of the additional staff which the Trustees of the Museum have requested for this purpose.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Chancellor aware that the British Museum contains one of the finest collections of Hebrew books in the world, but that no Hebrew catalogue has been published since 1894, and that there is not even a card index

of those books which have been acquired in the succeeding sixty years? Will his approval make it possible to do this cataloguing?

Mr. Amory: I was not aware of the particular case to which the hon. Member has referred, but I know there is a large backlog of cataloguing. It was with the object of helping to tackle that problem that I approved these additional places.

Income Tax (Schedule E)

Mr. Wade: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will adjust the rules relating to expenses allowable in assessing liability to Income Tax under Schedule E, in order to remove the anomalies which at present exist as between those who are assessed for Income Tax under Schedule E and those who are assessed under Schedule D.

Mr. Amory: The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Wade: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that taxpayers who are in receipt of salaries and wages are at a disadvantage and are treated more adversely than those assessed under Schedule D? It is a long time since the Royal Commission reported, and there has been rather a long close season. Can the right hon. Gentleman's reference to his Budget statement be regarded as an assurance that he will look into this matter again before making that statement?

Mr. Amory: I am very cautious about accepting any commitment at all, but I think I can safely say that between now and the Budget I shall be looking again at everything which I have already looked at, so I can give the hon. Member the assurance for which he has asked. On the other hand, I would ask him to appreciate that there is a difference in the nature of the offices assessed under Schedule E and Schedule D, respectively.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my right hon. Friend take note of suggestions repeatedly made by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the effect that he ought to take powers to change taxation from time to time during the year by way of affirmative Resolution, which would enable him repeatedly to enjoy


anticipating his Budget statement? Cannot we get away from this absurd period of purdah of four months preceding the annual Budget?

Tax Collection (Cost)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost to his Department of collecting taxes in the financial year 1958–59.

Mr. Amory: About £65 million for the Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue together.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will the Chancellor bear in mind the possibility of simplifying the tax structure so that we can reduce this figure in the coming Budget?

Mr. Amory: That is something that I am always looking at and hoping that we shall find ways of achieving, but the costs of these Departments, if considered as a percentage of the revenue collected, cannot be regarded as entirely unsatisfactory. They are 1·38 per cent in the case of the Inland Revenue Department and 0·86 per cent. in the case of the Customs and Excise Department, which compare well with such rates as I have been able to obtain in respect of any other country.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that this is one piece of State enterprise which makes a profit?

Mr. Amory: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Committee on Prices, Productivity and Incomes

Mr. C. Pannell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to announce the name of the successor to Lord Cohen as Chairman of the Committee on Prices, Productivity and Incomes.

Mr. Amory: I am not yet ready to make a statement.

Mr. Pannell: Has the Minister tried very hard to get a successor to Lord Justice Cohen, or are the higher members of the judiciary deterred by the sad experience of Lord Justice Devlin? Would it not be better to allow this nebulous body to sink back into the oblivion from which it should never have emerged?

Mr. Amory: I do not agree with the tenor of the hon. Member's question, but

I am giving careful consideration to this matter, not only as to its composition but as to its rôle, and other aspects.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman gave me that answer in November, in the last Parliament, can he say when he thinks he will be ready to give an answer?

Mr. Amory: I am afraid that I cannot do so yet. The answer I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) was slightly different from that which I have given today.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Has Lord Radcliffe, who has alternated with Lord Cohen as chairman of most of our financial inquiries for the last few years, removed himself from consideration for this appointment because of the nature of his last Report?

Mr. Amory: No. I have very great admiration for the abilities and the work of Lord Radcliffe.

Housing Loans

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in view of the recent 1 per cent. increase in the Bank Rate, if he will give an assurance that he will not authorise a further rise in the interest on municipal housing loans;
(2) what steps he will take to ensure that local authorities do not have to bear a further increase in interest charges on housing loans following the rise in the Bank Rate;
(3) if, following the recent rise in the Bank Rate, he will reconsider the need to provide cheap housing loans, and so prevent further increases in council house rents and further cuts in building programmes.

Mr. Amory: As I explained in my Reply on 17th November last to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), I do not consider that it would be right to take steps to insulate local authorities from the effects of prevailing levels of interest rates.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Chancellor aware that an extra 1 per cent. on the housing loan would add 8s. 6d. a week for sixty years to the interest charges on a typical multi-storey flat costing £2,390, which have already been increased by 21s. 3d. a


week since 1951? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the effect on families and young couples on the housing list, and cannot he see the cut in the housing programme which would certainly result? Will he reconsider the question?

Mr. Amory: To keep this matter in perspective, may I say that the increase in the rate of lending by the Public Works Loan Board, made following the recent increase in the Bank Rate in the section of the longest-term borrowing, which covers most of the borrowing by local authorities, has been not 1 per cent. but ⅓ per cent.

Mr. Mitchison: In view of the difficulties of local authorities in this matter, can the right hon. Gentleman say how the rates of interest charged to them compare with the rates charged to Colvilles, B.M.C. and other people who borrow public funds?

Mr. Amory: What I can say is that in these cases the Government fix the rate of interest as near as they can to the comparable rate of interest current in the market.

Mr. Mitchison: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is higher or lower than the rate charged to Colvilles and B.M.C.?

Mr. Amory: These rates were fixed to be comparable with the rates in the market at the time the loans were made, and that will continue to be the policy. In some cases the rates may be higher and in some cases lower. They were comparable with the current rates in the market at the time the loans were made.

Miss Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the combination of these higher rates with a high cost of living has put some local authorities in the position that if they pay current prices for land and loans and other things, it is impossible for them to rent the houses at a price which our people can afford?

Mr. Amory: I am sure that the best service we can render to the constituents of the hon. Lady and of other hon. Members is to do our utmost to make sure that we keep the economy in balance.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since it was officially said that one reason for putting up the

Bank Rate was the need to counter speculation on the Stock Exchange, is it because of the failure of the Government to counter that speculation that local authorities have to pay more for their essential borrowing and that rents are rising to a level beyond the ability of some families to pay—as the Minister of Housing knows from cases recently referred to him from my constituency and from other constituencies?

Mr. Amory: I have already given the reasons for the recent increase in the Bank Rate.

Mr. Jay: Will the Chancellor say whether he has made a corresponding increase in the rate at which the Government are lending to building societies, which was lower than that for the Public Works Loan Board?

Mr. Amory: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to put down a Question on that subject.

Vehicle Excise and Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Receipts)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated yield in the current financial year for licensed-vehicle duty and fuel-oil duty paid by the passenger transport industry.

Mr. Amory: It is £3 million from vehicle excise licence duty and £30 million from hydrocarbon oil duty.

Mr. Prentice: I do not expect the Chancellor to anticipate his Budget statement, but does he appreciate that there is a growing volume of opinion that these pernicious taxes on bus tickets ought to be swept away? Will he agree that the growing congestion on the roads in the rush hours and the increasing number of road casualties make it even more urgent that he should remove this taxation from the passenger industry, and will he bear these factors in mind as well as other arguments which have been used in previous years?

Mr. Amory: I will bear in mind the factors which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I agree with him about the seriousness of the two problems to which he has called my attention.

Motor Car and Shipping Firms (Assistance)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the financial aid now being arranged for motor car and shipping firms will be in the form of unconditional grants or will be made in exchange for stock.

Mr. Amory: Some motor car firms will be given assistance under the Distribution of Industry Acts or under the Local Employment Bill when enacted. The exact form of the assistance has still to be negotiated, but where any repayment obligation is incurred by a firm, adequate security will be arranged. There are no proposals before me for financial aid to shipping firms.

Mr. Hynd: As there are many forecasts of outright free gifts to the shipping companies, and in some cases to the motor car companies, will the Chancellor bear in mind the precedent set by previous Conservative Governments, who invested in the Suez Canal and in Middle East oil, and see whether we cannot give assistance by way of purchasing stock in these firms so that the taxpayer may have some return when profits are made?

Mr. Amory: There is not much analogy between the point to which the hon. Gentleman refers and the Local Employment Bill, but he will have studied the provisions of that Bill and understand the place that grants and loans, respectively, have in that legislation.

Private Industry and Agriculture (Assistance)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of financial assistance provided in the form of subsidies and loans to private industry and agriculture since 1951; and what sums have been returned to the Government either in capital or interest.

Mr. Amory: Between 1st April, 1951, and 31st March, 1959, subsidies to private industry and agriculture amounted to £2,311 million. In the same period, loans granted to private industry and agriculture amounted to £84 million and repayments of capital and interest,

including repayments in respect of certain loans granted prior to 1st April, 1951, amounted to £38 million.

Mr. Shinwell: Are not these vast sums out of the taxpayer's pocket rather too high? Is this not rather lavish expenditure in view of the fact that only £38 million has been returned to the Exchequer? In view of the need for subsidies and loans to privately-owned industry, why do we have these complaints about investment in nationalised industries?

Mr. Amory: The main reason for the fact that only £38 million out of £84 million has been repaid is that, substantially, that is all that is yet due for repayment under the arrangements. As to whether the sum is too big or not, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in his Government's day there were enormous sums paid in subsidies and they did not produce the results which my Government have produced.

Mr. Tiley: Would my right hon. Friend give the House the amount collected in taxation from the profits which these farmers and industrialists have produced over the same period? We should then see that many thousands, indeed, millions, more was received than was paid in these subsidies.

Mr. Amory: I could not give my hon. Friend the precise sum, but I can say that I have benefited a little from that source.

Customs and Excise Department, Gravesend (Workshop Equipment)

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what workshop equipment is provided for the use of engineers employed by the Customs and Excise Department on the maintenance of their launches at Gravesend; what was the cost to the Customs and Excise Department of repairs, overhauls and other work carried out by contractors on these launches for the year ended 31st March, 1959; and whether, in the interests of economy, more effective use will be made of the Customs and Excise Department's own engineers.

Mr. Amory: The answers to the hon. Member's Questions are—the hand and


small power tools needed to carry out maintenance work; £10,825; the present method of employing these engineers is already considered to be the most economical.

Mr. Irving: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that view is not shared by many of the people who know this unit? Is it not totally uneconomic to have men who are qualified and capable of doing the job if they had the tools and at the same time involve the Exchequer in large sums by way of contracts?

Mr. Amory: If the facts were as stated by the hon. Member, I would agree with him, but the fact is that this unit consists of a staff of five whose functions are emergency repairs, top overhaul of engines and day-to-day maintenance, and it has been found more economic to put larger repairs out than to maintain a fully-equipped maintenance yard. If the hon. Member still feels that the facts in his knowledge conflict with what I have said, I should be glad if he would write to me on the subject.

Post-War Credits

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the amount of post-war credits repaid, to the latest convenient date, on the grounds of hardship.

Mr. Amory: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Johnson: Is that not an extraordinary statement? After all the difficulty we had in persuading my right hon. Friend to define hardship—and I congratulate him on succeeding in defining it—surely we ought to know how much has been repaid? I was hoping to ask him to define it a little more widely.

Mr. Amory: The explanation, as I think my hon. Friend can imagine, is the work that would be entailed. We do not analyse our central records in that particular way as between one type of recipient and another. As he knows, the actual payment is not centralised. It would involve a tremendous amount of work if we were to analyse all these kinds of payments in ways which would permit me to answer all the questions which hon. Members ask me.

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of the great interest taken in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to obtain the information? Is he aware that the total amount of staff needed to do this work would probably be smaller than that employed on getting Answers to Questions about Purchase Tax asked by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)? Is he aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House are disturbed about the operation of this scheme in relation to hardship, particularly in tying the payment in so many cases to the unemployability supplement? Is he aware that if he relaxed that part of the conditions he would relieve a little more hardship and be able to deal with some of the difficult personal cases of which hon. Members have knowledge?

Mr. Amory: I am glad to answer the question of the right hon. Member, and I am anxious to do everything I can to get the administration of this difficult bit of work as good as we can make it and as fair as we can make it. I am afraid that strictly to separate all these individual payments now from our total national record would involve a tremendous amount of work. I am anxious to keep the House in touch. What I shall do, in reply to my hon. Friend and to the right hon. Member, is to see if there is any way in which I can give an approximate figure. Perhaps it would be a little rough and ready, but I shall see what I can do.

Estate Duty (Government Stocks)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to improving the market value of Government stocks, he will instruct the Estate Duty Office to accept in settlement of death duties Government stocks at a value half-way between their issued value and market value at the time of death, where such stocks are standing below their issued value at the time of death.

Mr. Amory: I am afraid not. The right of a holder to surrender stock for the purposes of Estate Duty is a fundamental condition of a stock determined at the time of issue.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my right hon. Friend think about the example of


Victory Bonds, which have been successful in showing some reduction of the National Debt as well as maintaining a reasonable price for Government stock? Might that not be a matter for further consideration?

Mr. Amory: If my memory holds good, I think the right to surrender Victory Bonds was contained in the prospectus at the time of their issue.

Aswan Dam Project

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement regarding the consultations he has had with the World Bank regarding the Aswan Dam project.

Mr. Amory: Since the breakdown of the negotiations in 1956 there has been no proposal for an International Bank loan for this project.

Mr. Donnelly: Has the Chancellor given thought to the possibility, in order to explain to the Egyptians why we were not able to help them, of inviting the World Bank to make a bulk purchase of Sir Anthony Eden's memoirs?

Fishermen, Lowestoft (Duty-Free Tobacco)

Mr. Prior: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make changes in the home trade limits to allow fishermen from the port of Lowestoft to obtain duty-free tobacco.

Mr. Amory: I do not think any change in these long standing rules would be justified. The existing limits apply to fishermen from Lowestoft in the same way as to those from any other port in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Prior: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this will cause great disappointment to fishermen at Lowestoft and other ports who have long distances to go and are out at sea for greater periods than heretofore? Will he look at this matter again to see if he can change his mind?

Mr. Amory: I should be surprised to know that the present limits give widespread dissatisfaction. They have been current for thirty-five years and were agreed with the British Trawlers Federation. If my hon. Friend has any specific information to the contrary, perhaps he will give it to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959 (Grants)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) what limit he has fixed to the total which may be granted to any one landlord under the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959; and
(2) what arrangements he prescribes for means tests in respect of grants under the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): The Act gives landlords and owner-occupiers the right to a grant of up to £155 for each dwelling improved, subject to compliance with certain simple conditions. There is no power in the Act to impose further limitations on the lines suggested, nor would I consider them desirable.

Mr. Fernyhough: The Minister has not answered question No. 40 at all. I want to know if he thinks it justifiable under this Act to give any one landlord a sum of over £30,000, as has been given to Lord Cowdray, and £1,203 to the Duke of Norfolk, at a time when at the Dispatch Box the Minister tells local authorities to impose a means test for council house tenants?

Mr. Brooke: I have no specific knowledge of the cases the hon. Member has mentioned, but I am entitled to ask him—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—whether he supported the Labour Government in 1949 in advising local authorities that an applicant's financial resources are wholly irrelevant in considering the applicant's qualifications.

Mr. Fernyhough: I should like to answer the Minister. Certainly I did. [Interruption.] It is as well that the right hon. Gentleman should know that a Labour Government provided councils with very generous subsidies and we do not mind if there is fair play between landlords and tenants.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is my fault, but there was so much noise that I could not keep the Minister in order. I think we should maintain a interrogatory form of progress.

Mr. Fernyhough: I should like to continue to enlighten the Minister.

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what is the number of the grants made to owner occupiers and landlords, respectively, under the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, and the respective amounts involved.

Mr. H. Brooke: The information furnished to me by local authorities does not distinguish between grants to owner-occupiers and grants to landlords.

Mr. Fernyhough: The purpose of my Question was to ask the Minister to get this information. That is the purpose of his being there, to supply us with information in answer to questions which we put. It would be a simple matter if he wanted to get the information. Is he afraid that if he got it it would be useful to me but would produce difficulties for him?

Mr. Brooke: I have been considering obtaining that information, but the tenor of the hon. Member's Question appears to be that a result would be achieved which would show the principal sufferers to be the tenants.

Mr. M. Stewart: Will the Minister now get the information?

Mr. Brooke: That is exactly what I am considering. I am extremely anxious to stimulate the obtaining of these grants by landlords as well as by owner occupiers.

Mr. Speaker: The Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Mr. Short: On a point of order. Before the Colonial Secretary makes his statement, may I raise this point? The Minister of Housing and Local Government made a rather alarming statement. He said that he was getting certain information and then went on to impute to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) a certain motive by talking about the tenor of his Question. Is it in order for a Minister to refuse to give information simply because he does not like the tenor of the Question?

Mr. Speaker: To do so would not be in order, but I did not hear the Minister

declining to give information on that ground.

NYASALAND

Demonstration, Blantyre (Inquiry)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Iain Macleod): With permission, I will make a statement regarding the demonstration which occurred in Blantyre on the occasion of the Prime Minister's visit on 26th January.
I should prefer not to say anything at this stage about the circumstances and the course of the demonstration, because a formal inquiry is to be made. The Governor is proposing to appoint a judge to investigate the incident and, in particular, to report on the allegations which have been made against individual members of the Nyasaland Police Force.
I should like to make it clear to the House, however, that it does not follow from the establishment of this inquiry that I accept allegations which have been made. As the House will appreciate, the allegations
which have been made against individuals are a serious matter and it is primarily for this reason that I have felt it desirable not to rely on the ordinary Departmental form of inquiry. I hope the House will agree that, in all the circumstances, this is the most satisfactory procedure.

Mr. Callaghan: We welcome the proposal to set up a formal inquiry and to appoint a judge to conduct it. Will he be a colonial judge, or is it proposed on this occasion to send out a judge of the High Court from this country? Will the inquiry be held in public?
Will the right hon. Gentleman look into a related matter—the conditions under which these police officers serve? In this country every police officer serves under a very rigid code of discipline. Does he do so in the Colonial Territories? Does the code of discipline which applies here, for example, in the treatment of the public and the behaviour of the police in certain circumstances, also apply in Colonial Territories?
Is there a similar code in Nyasaland and other territories? If not, will the


right hon. Gentleman look into this matter, because where the protection of law is removed, as it is in a police State, it is doubly important that the police should be under very rigid conditions of discipline.

Mr. Macleod: The Governor is consulting with the Chief Justice and will put forward the name of a judge to me. I have not given him any instructions on that matter. I will see the name which he puts forward to me. I am bound to say that I do not think that it would be appropriate or desirable to send out a judge from this country, and I am certain that the Governor, in conjunction with the Chief Justice of Nyasaland, will put forward a suitable name. It is normal for the person who conducts the inquiry to decide whether the hearings will be held in public, but I can, of course, give an undertaking that the report which is made to me will be published and will, therefore, be available to the House.
The hon. Gentleman raised a rather complicated matter about the exact relationship between the code of
discipline which is in force here and those which are in force in the Colonies. I should like to look into that question and either write to him about it or find another way of making the relationship clear.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Colonial Secretary aware that the demonstrators were carrying posters reading, "Free Dr. Banda now"? When does he propose to accede to that very reasonable request?

Mr. Macleod: I am not sure that that arises directly out of my statement. Perhaps the hon. Member has read a speech which I made in Leeds fairly recently.

Mr. C. Pannell: It was not a very good speech.

Mr. Macleod: I thought that it was a good speech. From that speech the hon. Member will see that an accelerated release of detainees is going on. I have said that I hope to see an early end to the emergency.

Mr. Dugdale: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has decided to set up an inquiry, which we all welcome, has he released those people who were

arrested as a result of the riots, which may or may not have been provoked by the police?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is very well informed on this matter, for 35 people were arrested at the scene of the demonstration but none of them was held overnight.

Mr. Grimond: While I welcome this inquiry, and hope that its findings will be acted upon, as there is some chance that there may be valuable witnesses to these incidents who are no longer in Nyasaland, and as the inquiry will be held in Nyasaland, may I ask whether there will be any means of taking evidence from these people?

Mr. Macleod: In his message to me the Governor suggested that if people who were there, such as Press reporters, liked to send sworn statements and photographs, or anything of that sort. they would be taken into account.

Mrs. Castle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that any African in Nyasaland who gives evidence before this inquiry will receive protection against civil or criminal proceedings under Emergency Regulation No. 35?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot imagine that such an assurance is necessary. If it is necessary, of course I give it.

Mr. Fernyhough: In considering names, will the Chief Justice put on the list of judges for consideration the name of Lord Justice Devlin?

Mr. Thorpe: May we hope that the Government will give greater weight to the report of this judge than they gave to that of a previous judge on these matters even if, when the report is published, they find it necessary to put up the Attorney-General as their chief colonial spokesman?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Macleod: I thought that the question was a little over-rehearsed.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, may I ask the Colonial Secretary an under-rehearsed question? I want to say how much we welcome his approach in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] It will be phrased interrogatively.


Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the striking contrast this is to the attitude of his predecessor, who, in relation to a much more serious matter at Hola, when 11 Africans lost their lives, appointed only a Departmental inquiry into the circumstances?

Mr. Macleod: I am quite certain that in these circumstances, and with the special feature which, in my view, gives added gravity to it—that of named allegations against particular members of the police—my predecessor would have taken exactly the same action as I have.

BILL PRESENTED

WAR DAMAGE (CLEARANCE PAYMENTS)

Bill to validate payments made by the War Damage Commission before the passing of this Act in respect of the clearance of war-damaged land, and to make further provision for such payments by the Commission, presented by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Mr. John Maclay, Mr. Henry Brooke, the Attorney-General, and Lord John Hope; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 61.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS INSULTS

3.39 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to insult publicly or conspire to insult publicly any person or persons because of their race or religion; and for purposes connected therewith.
The House will be aware of the unhappy circumstances which have prompted me to take this opportunity to seek leave to introduce this Bill. It will be aware of the rash of swastikas which have been daubed on public walls throughout our cities and towns, of other written insults to Jews and of constant insults being made to coloured citizens of this country.
These are not events which have taken place and then ceased. The House will be aware that as recently as last night the hallowed premises of the Pitt Club, in Cambridge, the political nursery of many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, were so treated. In addition to this, there are a great number of acts of intolerance shown against religious minorities in this country with which I propose to deal later and which have rarely had the attention of the House.
Practically all the statements are not mere expressions of opinion. If they were I do not think that I would be moving my Motion today. They are definite incitements to racial hatred. They are incitements which, ultimately, lead to physical assaults, if not dreadful mental assaults, on particularly innocent people. I have heard the suggestion made that this is a manifestation either of ignorant boys or of lunatics and that it should not be taken too seriously. I do not accept that view. I prefer the view expressed in the Sunday Times leader on 3rd January of this year which said, in part:
It is easy to write off the scrawling of swastikas on synagogues as the operation of a lunatic fringe. But where does lunacy end and a dangerous minority faction begin? And when we realise that a mass of people in the middle have no very strong views or clear thoughts, and can be swayed by a few who passionately believe themselves right, we may well awaken to some anxiety.
We should also remember that the lunatics perceive themselves, not as lunatics, but as the only sane people around. Many are zealous


evangelists who seriously seek to convent enough of their fellow citizens to make their views effective. And some of them could. It is no bad resolution for the new year in public affairs, as in domestic, not to oversleep".
Those words of the Sunday Times are supported by an article written in the Daily Telegraph on 19th January of this year by Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, who is perhaps one of our greatest living experts on German affairs. He said this:
It is no coincidence that the desecration of synagogues and attacks on Jews in Germany should have been accompanied by similar outrages in Britain and many other countries. There exists a Fascist International, whose members come from almost every country in Europe and keep in constant touch with one another.
Clearly, something has to be done if we are to extirpate what is for every one of us a loathsome phenomenon in this country which, if we do not extirpate it immediately, may grow from comparatively isolated incidents to quite disastrous proportions. I appreciate that the Home Secretary is very perturbed about the situation and deplores it. He has gone on record as saying so. He has said also that he is in close consultation with the police. I would not have expected anything but that from a man with his liberal traditions.
All this is very good, but there is something else I wish to ask him. There is a rumour that the Home Office has a Bill on the stocks to deal with the perpetrators of such outrages. If it has, I hope that the Home Secretary will produce the Bill. It would be much more competently drafted and much more ably introduced into the House than anything I could produce. I would quite willingly withdraw my Motion if fiat is the intention of the Home Secretary. Failing action of that kind. I ask the House to give me leave to introduce the Bill.
The argument has already been put to me that what I am seeking to do is to put a restraint on personal freedom. Of course I am. Society is always putting restraints on personal freedom. Society generally acts in a purely pragmatic fashion. We are not allowed to drive on the right-hand side of the road merely because we want to. There are certain restraints on our freedom to poison our wives, to shoot policemen,

or to drop pieces of litter on the pavement. We may want to do things. But whether it is an act of deliberation, or whether it is a careless act, society sees to it quite pragmatically that we do not commit anti-social acts, for if we were to commit them we should be reducing society to a state of anarchy.
Years ago, long before I entered the House, Parliament decided on the banning of political uniforms, which in itself was a very direct attack on personal freedom. But is there any hon. Member today who does not agree that it was a wise and successful move to ban political uniforms in this country? It is in that pragmatic fashion that I am introducing the Bill.
As a citizen of this country I find it intolerable that hooligans of all classes and of all ages should be occupied, as they are now, in insulting Jews, negroes and religious minorities, by imitative scrawlings on walls. The scrawling of this vile swastika symbol on the walls of our country is designed only for the purpose of creating consternation, alarm and despair in the breasts of innocent people, people who have seen millions of their co-religionists tortured, gassed and burned to death in Hitler's Germany. I know of a professional man who, when he saw swastikas being written on the walls in front of his house said, "I can't go on. I can't go through this all over again". Hon. Members may feel that this is exaggerated defeatism. They may regard it as the defeatism of a craven creature. But hon. Members have not had to lie awake at night waiting for the knock on the door at 3 o'clock in the morning. They have not been herded in cattle trucks to concentration camps.
Very few of us mourn for loved ones of ours who have been burned in the incinerators in Hitler's Germany. None of us had to lick the pavements, or wear a badge of shame to distinguish us from our fellow citizens. Countless numbers were made to do these things under the very banner of the
swastika which is now being repeated in this country. I believe that if we had suffered one-hundredth of what the Jews suffered in Germany, Austria and other occupied countries during the war we could appreciate the bitterness of this perfectly innocent man's feeling. This man, who was a German


Jew, is now a naturalised British citizen, giving good service to the country.
It is not only the misery to the refugees in World Refugee Year about which I complain. I complain of the insults to hundreds of thousands of British Jews who are good citizens, as good citizens as every one of us in the House today. I am complaining of and trying to legislate against the insults to the coloured citizens of this country and of the Commonwealth who are publicly insulted every day by seeing signs like, "Niggers get out" and "Keep Britain white", with their undertones that any poor white is better than any good black, yellow or brown man. This is taking place in the year of African independence. I object to Catholics in some part of this country being met with signs saying, "Protestants only", or "Catholics need not apply".
I know that it has been said that one cannot legislate against these occurrences, but one can. For example, in Sweden Chapter 2 of the penal law makes it an offence for anyone publicly to threaten, calumniate or defame a population, group or religious belief. There is the famous Lex Alberg in the Constitution, a Press law which makes it an offence to print attacks on people simply because of their race or religious belief. Switzerland has a law dealing with group libel. New York has a law dealing with racial discrimination, which is not quite my point but is an illustration of the fact that legislatures can take, and have taken, action to deal with this sort of squalor.
I am also told that there is plenty of opportunity under the Public Order Act to deal with this situation, but that argument absolutely misses the point which I want to make, which is that I believe that the House should make religious and racial insults a specific and separate offence from anything which now stands on the Statute Book. Racialism is not always a breach of public order, but it is always an insult and an injury to innocent people who cannot defend themselves.
If I am given leave to introduce my Bill, I propose that the maximum penalty for these offences shall be a fine of £100 or six months in gaol, or both. I am told by some of my hon. Friends that

this is savage. I am prepared to listen to the arguments, the counsel and advice of those experienced in the administration and practice of the law—I have no rigid feeling—but I would remind the House that the sentences imposed on the Notting Hill rioters have had a most salutary effect. Those sentences were harsh—indeed, some of my hon. Friends thought that they were too harsh—but the fact is that there has not been a repetition of that particular horror.
I am told, also, that this matter must be dealt with by education. The Germans failed to educate their people, but do we educate our people? An 18-yearold sailor was fined £15 for swastika-daubing at St. Annes-on-Sea, in Lancashire. He had heard of Hitler, but he had not heard of Belsen, Auchwitz, Dachau and other German camps. When shown photographs in Lord Russell's book, "The Scourge of the Swastika", of what had happened under the Nazis it is said that he went white. Was that young sailor educated? Are we educating our children about the last war? I should say that our history education stops about fifty years ago.
Can we afford to wait for the slow progress of education to counter this swift march of racialism? That is not the view of the Church of England, it is not the view of the Trades Union Congress, and it is not the view of the Convocation of Canterbury. Last week, a United Nations sub-commission on the prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities passed a unanimous resolution condemning anti-Semitic action and calling on Governments to pass additional laws, where needed, to prevent it. The sponsors were France, Austria, Uruguay, Finland and, I am proud to say, Great Britain.
The General Council of the Trades Union Congress called last week for the strengthening of the operation and provision of the law to put an end to all such incidents, and the Convocation of Canterbury passed a resolution deploring the outbreaks
… and called on all men of good will to resist by every means in their power all forms of racial bitterness and hatred.
All hon. Members are men and women of good will. We all have in our hands the power to deal with this situation. In asking hon. Members to give me leave


to introduce the Bill, I say that the least that can happen by giving that permission is that this House passes a unanimous condemnation of these outrageous practices and a determination to stamp out a pattern of behaviour and a philosophy that is alien to our nation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Leslie Plummer, Mr. Creech Jones, Mr. Driberg, Mr. Charles Royle, Mr. Mellish, Mr. Stonehouse, and Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS INSULTS

Bill to make it an offence to insult publicly or conspire to insult publicly any person or persons because of their race or religion; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 18th March and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL EMPLOYMENT BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

3.54 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 1, line 15, and Clause 9, page 6, line 40, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Maudling.
Of the Amendments concerned, the major one is designed to meet the point made by the Opposition earlier, and I therefore hope that the House will agree to this procedural Motion. Perhaps it will simplfy matters if I say that if those who have tabled Amendments to this Motion catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly have no objection to them from a procedural point of view.

Mr. James Griffiths: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intimation that he will not oppose the other Amendments.

Question amended, by adding, at the end:
and the Amendments to Clause 1, page 2, line 27 and Clause 2, page 2, line 34 and page 3, line 3 and the new Clause (Application of principal enactment to offices) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. James Griffiths".—[Mr. J. Griffiths.]
and the Amendment to Clause 3, page 3, line 10, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. William Ross".—[Mr. Ross.]

and:
and the Amendment to Clause 3, page 3, line 10, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Watkins".—[Mr. Watkins.]

and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(PURPOSE FOR WHICH PART I POWERS EXCISABLE, AND DURATION OF POWERS.)

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page I, line 15, to leave out "imminent, and" and to insert:
to be expected within such a period that it is expedient to exercise the said powers and (in either case)".


As the Committee will recall, we had discussion earlier on this very important point. Everyone has agreed that it is not sufficient to take action after unemployment on a serious scale has arisen and that, therefore, the Board of Trade must have powers to anticipate it. On the other hand, if the powers are too wide and too vague, and refer merely to a possible threat in the future, our resources might be dissipated over too large an area.
In the original Bill we used the word "imminent", which we thought would imply a threat of employment arising from some particular fact that is known and which, in itself, implies the likelihood of unemployment within a short period. A number of powerful arguments were put forward at that time that this was inadequate, and, on the undertaking I then gave, we have been reconsidering the drafting.
We thought it wise not to try to describe by an adjective what we have in mind, but to set out in detail what we are trying to do; which is to give the Board of Trade power to act when it should act. That is really what the Amendment says. If accepted, the Amendment moans that our powers will be capable of being used, not merely where there is substantial unemployment but also when unemployment is to be expected within such a period that we ought to do something about it. That is to put it in plain English.
I think that that should meet the views put forward earlier in Committee when it was pointed out with some force that in modern conditions, because the time it takes to build a factory, get a project going and people employed is considerable, there is a period during which it is necessary to expedite things. This would apply, first, to the likelihood of unemployment, and, secondly, to the time it would take to get an enterprise operating on a scale sufficient to absorb a large number of people.
We therefore hope that this Amendment will meet the point of view of both sides of the Committee, based as it is on common sense, and expressing in the simplest language possible what both sides want.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for

looking again at the word "imminent". We had quite an extensive discussion on this matter in Committee and I do not propose to go over the whole of the around again.
The right hon. Gentleman will remember that during those discussions we suggested that the wording of the Distribution of Industry 1945 Act, Section 7 (2) was, in our opinion, rightly couched and gave us the right degree of powers of anticipation, and so on. We then submitted to him that if he would delete the word "imminent" and place in the Bill the words contained in the 1945 Act we would be very happy about it, as we felt that it achieved the objectives which the right hon. Gentleman himself told us he had in mind.
I quote the words of Section 7 (2):
Where at any time it appears to the Board that … there is likely to be a special danger of unemployment.
The right hon. Gentleman has not addressed himself in any way to those words. He has not told us why he has found it inconvenient, if that is the right word, to include them. I am rather disappointed that he has not spent some time in attempting to satisfy us that those words would not, in fact, do the thing which I understood that both sides of the Committee were seeking to achieve last time we discussed this matter.
We went into the matter in some detail and showed that "imminent" did not give us any powers of anticipation—the sort of powers which the right hon. Gentleman himself told us he required—and I think that from the fact that he undertook again to look at the word "imminent" conveyed to us that he was seized of the rightness of our objection. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman accept the words of the 1945 Act? His present form of words appears to us, quite frankly, although we are grateful for them as being an advance on his previous position, to be a quibble. The words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to insert are:
… to be expected within such a period that it is expedient to exercise the said powers and …".
I promise the right hon. Gentleman that I shall not delve into the Oxford Dictionary once again for the interpretation of the word "imminent". On the other hand, the word "expedient" has


a connotation in this respect which we do not like. One interpretation of the word "expedient" is "politic as opposed to just or right". I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman wants to insert a word which is, not on my interpretation but on the interpretation of the Oxford Dictionary, capable of definition as "politic as opposed to just or right". I do not want to raise temperatures too high, but I think that that is a first-class interpretation of what I have been looking at recently—Tory policy in general.
When, for instance, would it be expedient to do these things? Some of my hon. Friends will doubtless say that it will be when there is a General Election imminent. We are looking at this as something which, if agreed, will become a permanent part of our legislation, and, as I have said, it is capable of this interpretation which, I am quite certain, the right hon. Gentleman would not want to enshrine in our permanent legislation. Why is it that, having come so far as to agree to insert the words which I have quoted and which are on the Notice Paper, he will not go the whole way and agree to give us the words which appear in the 1945 Act?
The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he does not want to put in words which imply powers which are too wide or too vague. He said that that would tend to dissipate the powers. The 1945 period of legislation, which contains the words which I have quoted, was most effective. I know that they did not actually speak in terms of anticipation, but in the actual working of the 1945 Act very much of the considerable success achieved by that Act was due to the intelligent anticipation of the Government in power at that time. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would deny that.
Why, then, is it that, having had a form of words which proved most effective in the way they worked, and having agreed, also, that his own word "imminent" is, on the whole, not suitable for the type of work which he requires this part of the Bill to perform, he now quibbles and speaks in the terms of the Amendment which brings in the words
expedient to exercise the said powers.…"?

The right hon. Gentleman has gone some way to meet us and we do not want to appear that we ourselves are quibbling. We want, however, to get a form of words which will carry out the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman and which we on this side, on Second Reading, suggested should be the way in which the Bill should work. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take this Amendment back and again to look at the facts which I have tried to outline as to the interpretations which could be put on a word such as "expedient", and to agree that, looking at it in retrospect, the wording of the 1945 Act gives us the facility to work expeditiously and also gives us everything that we required in regards to the anticipation of unemployment.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw from this position of a sort of half-way house, which cannot satisfy my right hon. and hon. Friends. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us why he cannot accept the 1945 wording, and if he cannot, to accept that wording so that we can enshrine it in the Bill.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), who was so effective on many points, was not really serious when he related the word "expedient" to the party advantage of one side or the other of the Committee. Surely, it is obvious in a Bill of this kind, which may be operated by successive Governments—

Mr. Lee: I was quoting the Oxford Dictionary in using the words "politic as opposed to just or right". I am not saying that the word "politic" has to be used in a party sense. If the hon. Member does not accept the import of those words from me, he must accept the Oxford Dictionary.

Mr. Gower: Taking the word "politic" in that sense, surely whether a thing is "expedient" or "politic" is not to be related to a particular party, but to the judgment of the Board of Trade in considering questions in connection with the Bill. In that sense, I should have thought that the word "expedient" means expedient as judged by the Board of Trade to deal with the industrial problems contained in the Bill.


Even if we had the word "desirable", which is a much stronger word, the hon. Gentleman could raise the same objection. He could say, "desirable to whom?" Desirable to the Government at a particular time before an election? If the stronger word "desirable" is used, he could then ask who was to judge the desirability of the implementation of the Bill. I should have thought that the objections raised by the hon. Gentleman were not really valid. I should have thought that the meaning of the word in the context of the Bill was perfectly clear.

Mr. Frederick Peart: The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) is rather naïve. I will leave it at that.
We are anxious that, irrespective of words, there shall be action. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) has said, the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, provided in its wording for the action we required. I have in mind the advance factories which were created by the Board of Trade, and things of that kind. There should be no doubt about whether the Board of Trade will act. The right hon. Gentleman has retreated somewhat from the position he originally took up, but he still has not gone far enough and he should give more satisfactory reasons for what he asks the Committee to accept.
I have in mind areas such as my own where, in a particular part of west Cumberland, the coal industry is contracting. It may well be that, in two or three years from now, more miners will be made redundant. We are anxious that there should be adequate powers for the Board of Trade to act now to deal with a situation which could well arise four or five years hence, so that any contraction in a major industry could be phased with industrial development now, the creation of new factories and the provision of factory space, against the possibility of redundancies later.
There should be no doubt whatever about what the Board of Trade can do. The words the Minister has chosen are not wholly adequate. The wording itself is not really satisfactory. I do not know who was responsible for it. The words in the Amendment are certainly not as good as the words in the 1945 Act.

Mr. David Ginsburg: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) in saying that the wording which the Minister proposes is good as far as it goes, but I want to press him again to explain why he has not chosen to use the words contained in the 1945 Act. The operative words in that Act were:
Where at any time it appears to the Board that the distribution of industry is such that in any area not specified in the First Schedule there is likely to be a special danger of unemployment …
The words which the President of the
Board of Trade has omitted from his Amendment are exactly the words
that the distribution of industry is such.
Why has he dropped those words? There is a later Amendment, in page 1, line 9, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, which refers to the proper diversification and distribution of industry, but it is important to note that that Amendment about the diversification of industry applies as an objective of the Measure when it is implemented but is not part of a condition for bringing it into operation. In other words, if there is unemployment, then, presumably, the Bill will be used to diversify industry.
If, on the other hand, there is an area—and there are many such—where the distribution of industry is unhealthy now so that there could be an imminence of unemployment, then as I see it, because the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to leave out those words, there is a risk that the Bill will not operate in such circumstances.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: We are very pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this provision of the Bill again. The right hon. Gentleman has tried to meet our wishes in the wording that he has now brought forward, but I am sure that he will agree, on reflection, that, from the standpoint we take about this Clause, his wording does not match the sort of action we want to see being taken under the Bill.
We thought that the Bill would come into operation much too late if the wording originally used was retained, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman admits that now. He suggests today the expression:
to be expected within such a period that it is expedient to exercise the said powers".


But action in this sense, also, could be too late.
I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart). Where it can be expected, in a dying coalfield, for example, that there will be a village or town bereft of employment in a certain number of years, the President of the Board of Trade ought to be able, in timely fashion, to he able to take protective action so as to avoid any great unemployment occurring in the area. Also, I should like him to have, within his own powers under the Bill, a blueprint to fit industrial fluctuations throughout the country and be able to prevent thereby almost completely, by steering industry into the affected areas, the sort of situation which, I think, perturbs all hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) thinks that "expedient" is not a good word. While we on this side of the Committee do not like the word "expedient", I am not so much concerned with it in that sense. I want the President of the Board of Trade to say whether he has any actual period in mind in using the words "within such a period". In justification for his form of words, he mentioned the time it would take to build a factory. Site preparation, and so forth, does take time, and, perhaps, eighteen months would be a good estimate. Is he thinking of that sort of time for the preparatory work necessary in order to cope with unemployment which is foreseeable in any particular area? Has he any definite grounds for opposing the much more specific words of the 1945 Act?

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: I can well understand that the President of the Board of Trade is reluctant to widen the Bill beyond what he regards as the scope necessary for its purpose. When we argued about these Clauses on an earlier occasion it seemed that, while he assured us that he had an open mind about the word "imminent", he had already made up his mind not to go beyond a certain limit. This is really the trouble with the new formulation which he has introduced. It is not just a quibble about words. It is an important matter, and we want the right hon. Gentleman to look at it again.
The right hon. Gentleman intends to include a reference to something which we on this side of the Committee regard as very important, namely, the proper diversification of industry, but, if I may say so with respect, he is bringing that in at a point where it does not matter very much. If there is a declining industry in a certain area and it becomes necessary to bring employment into that area, nobody would think of taking factories in the same industry into the area where the industry is already declining. Diversification, or, at least, an element of it, is really automatic then. We have gained very little if the factor of diversification is given weight only at a time when it really does not avert the evil which we wish to prevent.
I cannot see why it is not possible, even if the President of the Board of Trade does not wish to return to the words of the 1945 Act, to introduce the words "the proper distribution and diversification of industry" as one of the factors that would make it expedient for the Minister to act, unless there is a determination to leave the Bill so flexible that at any given moment it is possible to do nothing at all because there may be general reasons for not wishing to do anything. I did not understand that that was the right hon. Gentleman's attitude earlier.
I therefore cannot understand why it is not possible, even at this late stage, to put the words "the proper diversification and distribution of industry" into the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman were to do that, he would meet most of the points about which some of us have been deeply concerned.

Mr. Maudling: Perhaps I may intervene at this stage, because there appears to be some confusion. The Amendment is not concerned with the question why the Board of Trade should act, but when it should be able to act. The question whether diversification comes into it is not in issue on this Amendment, which is concerned solely with how soon in advance of the growth of unemployment we are empowered to act. The other points may be good, but I respectfully suggest that they are not relevant to this Amendment.

Mr. Mendelson: If our argument is to be dismissed as irrelevant, I ought to say that in deciding what is the right


time to act any administration will have to consider whether a particular area is dependent upon one industry only which happens to be in decline. Diversification is immediately relevant when the Minister comes to make up his mind.

Mr. Maudling: The question at issue is whether the Bill should contain the word "imminent" or the other words to which reference has been made. Those two alternatives are merely descriptive of the period of time within which the Board of Trade should act.
I am disappointed at the reaction of the other side of the Committee to this Amendment. I can understand hon. Members opposite complaining when we put forward an Amendment which goes only part of the way to meet their point, but when I go 100 per cent. of the way, if not further, it is disappointing to be accused of quibbling. If anyone is quibbling, it is the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). The hon. Member asked why we have not used the words "special danger". The reason is that if we were to use those words our powers would not be as wide as they would be under the Amendment. I think that that is a fairly good reason.
The words in the subsection which we
are considering are:
locality in Great Britain in which in the opinion of the Board of Trade … a high rate of unemployment exists or is imminent.
It is accepted—the text of the Bill is not challenged—that the judgment is to be made by the Board of Trade. First, we have to judge whether a high rate of unemployment exists, and, secondly—and this is the point at issue—what we have to judge is "anticipation". The Bill, as originally drafted, said we must judge that unemployment is imminent. I accept that that could be improved. If we were told that there was a special danger of unemployment, I think that that would he much more restrictive. I agree that if there were an area based on one industry where there is high unemployment that might be a special danger. However, we do not want to deal only with the special danger of unemployment but with all dangers of unemployment.
In effect, the Amendment will give us power to act as soon as we think that we ought to act. We cannot go any further than that. If the Bill is so framed

as to leave the judgment, as it must be left as a point of administration, to the Board of Trade, we can hardly go further than say, "We will act as soon as there is unemployment, or as soon as we think that there is a danger of it and that it is time that we did something about it".
By the Amendment we have tried to go 100 per cent. of the way, as the Opposition wished, and I do not think that any alternative words could possibly be wider. In fact, they would be narrower.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The President of the Board of Trade has gone part of the way to meet us. We said in Committee that, in our view, if the word "imminent" were left in the Bill as drafted it would not meet the point put very strongly from both sides We are entering a period of great technological change. There are two kinds of unemployment that we have to meet: first, unemployment due to economic policy; and, secondly, the unemployment which results from quick and rapid technological changes.
When the Bill is law it will be the substantive measure to deal with the unemployment problem. Every word of the 1945 Act will have been repealed. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the major object of the 1945 Act was not to deal with imminent unemployment or with the problems of localities, but to ensure that there was a sensible distribution of industry. When the Bill becomes an Act I hope that there will be very close contact between all industries experiencing or likely to experience unemployment from technological changes.
I have had experience of this in the industry which I know best. Because of changes in the coal industry, many mines have closed. Hundreds of men have been thrown out of work and have been unable to find employment of any kind. We want to avoid the sudden closure of old industries without an interval during which to take the necessary steps. We are anxious that the Board of Trade should be clothed with adequate power to act in anticipation of unemployment. It is essential that there should be the closest contact between the Board of Trade and industry. I should like industry generally to be obliged to acquaint the Government of changes in policy which may be followed by unemployment.


The word "expedient" frightens us. We would like to have a stronger word in the Bill. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for considering the matter and agreeing that the original words do not meet the desire of both sides of the Committee and that some other words will have to be substituted. We are anxious that the Bill should place an obligation on the Board of Trade to act in anticipation of unemployment in good time so that there is not a tremendous gap between the closing of old industries and the opening of new ones.
The words of the Amendment are an improvement on the Bill as first drafted. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter again to see whether he can remove our fears about the word "expedient".

Mr. William Baxter: Coming from west Stirlingshire, what worries me is this. There are two communities there; Kilsyth, a community of approximately 10,000 people, and Lennoxtown, a community of about 7,000 people. Nearly all the people in those areas have to travel considerable distances to and from work. How do the Government propose to tackle that problem?

The Chairman: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment.

Mr. Baxter: I want to know how, under the Bill, and especially under the Clause, the Minister will be able to help areas such as those to which I have referred.

The Chairman: That does not arise on this Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Surely it is perfectly in order, for we are dealing with the words:
to be expected within such a period that it is expedient to exercise the said powers…
Surely what my hon. Friend is arguing is whether, in this case, it is desirable to establish industry in those two areas, if it is possible to do so within the definition laid down. Surely it is in order to argue that.

The Chairman: The Amendment deals only with when the Minister shall act.

Mr. William Ross: I can well understand the reluctance of the President of the Board of Trade to accept the proposal that he should incorporate the word "danger"—danger of unemployment. What he fears is that there may be dangers which might not come to anything, but that the Board of Trade might take action which would be unnecessary, thereby wasting public money. If that accounts for his reluctance to accept our argument, it is difficult to understand how he construes that as being more limiting than the words which he has suggested. He could well have accepted our suggestion, which would not cost him anything.
What will the Amendment do? It makes a specific reference to localities, but whether the Government do anything at all thereafter will depend on the President of the Board of Trade and his advisers. In other words, no words included here can force or limit the hand of the President of the Board of Trade. It is left entirely to him to decide whether an area should be specified and whether thereafter powers should be exercised. There are few, if any, mandatory powers in the succeeding Clauses.
I cannot appreciate his unwillingness to accept what is a fact about areas of unemployment. There are areas where there is a special danger of unemployment, areas which have been shown historically to be especially vulnerable. Is it not better to have the right to take action there and to have the area specified, so that there is no need to go through all the rigmarole of persuading the Minister that he should specify such an area, then persuading him to take action?
What is now proposed is certainly an improvement on the last wording. In the last case we were bound by the question of what was imminent and there was no doubt that unemployment had to be facing an area and actually upon it before anything could be done.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It does not seem to me that one can find a better dictionary difinition of "imminent" than the words now proposed.

Mr. Ross: I have looked up many dictionaries in relation to our discussion on the word "imminent", but none of


them contained these words. There is no doubt an improvement on the last wording.
Exception has been taken to the word "expedient", but I think that that exception is probably a little false. However, the important thing is that expediency refers not to the Government, but to time
to be expected within such a period that it is expedient to exercise …
The expediency in relation to taking action is dependent on such a period, in the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade. That period may be three or four years, or two or three months. In that way, the right hon. Gentleman has given himself fairly wide scope for taking action.

Mr. Willis: Just before a General Election, of course.

Mr. Ross: At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman will equally appreciate that by including these words, he has power not to take action, even though heavy unemployment is expected. The danger may be there and may be admitted by the President of the Board of Trade, but the period may be such that no action need be taken, or it may not be expedient to take action. Having gone so far, I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman could have gone the whole way.

Mr. Manuel: I hope that we get an answer.

Mr. Ross: I am sure that, if the right hon. Gentleman accepted our suggestion about the word "danger", that would meet the case. He seems anxious to dispel our fears about certain areas historically vulnerable to changes in trade or economic conditions. They are the old areas, the special areas, where there is a special danger to unemployment which is still present. Having gone so far, the right hon. Gentleman should not have turned back from going all the way to allay our fears about the special areas with special dangers.

Dame Irene Ward: First, I must apologise for being rather late in attending the Committee, which, unfortunately, was unavoidable. I am a very practical person and I should like my right hon. Friend to argue against the Amendment on the basis of an example

from the kind of area which I represent. We now know that it is unavoidable that we should have to look forward to unemployment among the mining communities. On the North-East Coast there is apprehension about the future of shipbuilding and ship repairing. There can be no doubt that in the County of Durham as well as in the County of Northumberland many coal mines are now being closed.
I do not think that I particularly support the Amendment which has been proposed by hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Lady is not sure.

Dame Irene Ward: No, I am not sure.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): Order. Which Amendment is the hon. Lady discussing? We are not discussing an Amendment proposed by the Opposition. We are discussing the Minister's Amendment.

Dame Irene Ward: Well, the Minister's Amendment. I apologised for coming into the Chamber late.
Hon. Members opposite were talking about what they wanted done, and I am now talking about what I want done. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied about the Amendment
which he has proposed and with which I may or may not be in agreement? I want to know why we on the North-East Coast cannot get sanction from the Board of Trade—it may be the Treasury; I am not certain—to establish an extension of one of our industries on the Team Valley Trading Estate in the very centre of the mining area of County Durham. It is from that practical point of view—

The Temporary Chairman: I think that the hon. Lady had better settle this problem by correspondence with the President of the Board of Trade. It does not arise on this Amendment.

Dame Irene Ward: I hate disagreeing with the Chair, but the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has been talking about special areas. I am talking about other special areas, of the North-East Coast.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. As I understand, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) dealt, in passing,


whit the special areas in general. Now the hon. Lady is trying to deal with a specific point, but I think that if she looks at the wording of the Amendment which we are now discussing she will realise that she is entirely out of order.

Dame Irene Ward: Very well, Mr. Blackburn, I can now start talking in general about the special areas of the North-East Coast. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Most certainly. I want my right hon. Friend to say why, in view of the imminence of unemployment on the North-East Coast—

The Temporary Chairman: I must ask the hon. Lady to sit down or speak to the Amendment.

Dame Irene Ward: Am I not allowed to talk about the special areas?

The Temporary Chairman: I said that an hon. Member might make a passing reference to special areas in general, but must not go into any great detail about any particular area.

Dame Irene Ward: I am not going into great detail about a particular special area. I will talk about special areas all over the country. Can I talk about England?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Lady is allowed to speak to the Amendment, which is whether we shall have the words "imminent, and" in the Clause or the words
to be expected within such a period that it is expedient to exercise the said powers and (in either case)".
That is the Amendment.

Dame Irene Ward: I would prefer to have the words "imminent, and", because if the word "imminent" is embodied in the Bill there is a greater chance for the area which I represent to get fair treatment from the President of the Board of Trade. As I am not apparently entitled to make my case, and, of course, I accept your Ruling, Mr. Blackburn, I give notice here and now that I am so dissatisfied that I will vote against the Government and in support of the Opposition.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The apparent object of the Amendment is to bring uncertainty into

a very uncertain Clause. The Clause is full of vagueness and I recommend the Minister to take it back and recast it. The Amendment which he seeks does not do what he desires to do. The Clause is intended, on a fair construction, to put an obligation upon the Minister. It does nothing of the kind, and the Amendment is just as vague as the Clause itself.
The wording of the Amendment includes the word "imminent" and I am sure that there is no one in the Committee who will allege that that word is in any way a word that is certain. The Minister, by means of the Amendment, seeks to substitute for that word observations or words which are just as vague and uncertain and indefinite as the word "imminent" itself.
The Amendment contains the words "to be expected". Is there anything more vague? There is nothing certain about them. Then the expression "within such a period" is vague, and there is no way of measuring what the period will be. Then again, there are the words "that it is expedient" expedient in the Minister's mind. It used to be said about the courts of equity in the old days that their decisions were as variable as the length of the Lord Chancellor's foot. Here the decision as to what is expedient, what is the period and what is to be expected is just as variable as the length of the Minister's foot. I will not make the obvious joke that arises from the word "foot", beyond saying that the Amendment fails to do what the Minister intends.
The Clause is bad. It does not put any definite obligation upon the Minister, which should be upon him in this very important matter, and the Amendment would leave the Clause just as vague as it was at the beginning. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that the proper way out is to take back the whole Clause and recast it.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. There is no question in the Amendment of the Minister taking back the Clause. We are discussing only an Amendment to line 15. Therefore, the question whether the Clause is satisfactory does not arise.

Mr. Hughes: The word "imminent" is part of the Clause. The Minister seeks to take out the word "imminent" and to insert other words. My submission, Mr. Blackburn, is that he fails to make the Clause definite by that substitution. I am not discussing the Clause beyond saying that the Amendment fails to do what the Minister seeks to do and that, therefore, the Amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Maudling: I hope that the Committee can now take a decision. The Amendment is really designed to meet the wishes of all concerned, but a certain amount of confusion has arisen in the course of discussion. The question, quite simply, is whether the word "imminent" should be retained, or whether other words should take its place. The question whether the powers of the Board of Trade should be permissive or mandatory, though important, is not in any way relevant to the Amendment.
Nor is it right to suppose that the word "imminent" introduces objective judgment into the situation, because the word is qualified by the words
… in the opinion of the Board of Trade …
Therefore, we are merely deciding in what circumstances the Board of Trade shall be permitted to take certain action. It is my clear impression that both sides of the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), wish the Board to have the powers to act as soon as possible, and that is precisely what the Amendment provides.

Mr. Baxter: But do they not amount to a restriction on the President of the Board of Trade if, in the areas which I have tried to indicate, there is not at the moment a high incidence of unemployment because 100 per cent. of the workers go elsewhere to work? I suggest that there should be the greatest possible degree of power in the Bill so as to prevent the need arising for people to travel far afield for employment.

Mr. Maudling: The only restriction inherent in the Amendment is that the President of the Board of Trade should not act when it is inexpedient to do so.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said that the words which the President of the Board of Trade is introducing into the Clause had exactly the same meaning as "imminent". If that were true, the right hon. Gentleman would be grossly misleading us, because he would be making no change when he claims to be doing so. I do not agree with the noble Lord. I think that the Amendment makes a change and comes some way to meet us.
I agree with the President of the Board of Trade in that respect, but I think that it is he who is confused when he attacks my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and says that he has gone 100 per cent. of the way. What we are discussing is how to specify what is already in the Bill. We proposed in Committee that the right hon. Gentleman should adopt the words in the 1945 Act. The right hon. Gentleman, quite rightly, points out that the relevant subsection there included the words
… there is likely to be a special danger of unemployment …
and he argues that those words are more restrictive than the proposed words "to be expected" in the Amendment. I rather doubt that. I should have thought that there was not much in it.
The paint which the right hon. Gentleman failed to notice, however, and which justifies what at least two of my hon. Friends have said is that the words in the 1945 Act include also the words:
Where at any time it appears to the Board that the distribution of industry is such that in any area not specified in the said First Schedule there is likely to be a special danger.…
The right hon. Gentleman is not inserting those words in this part of the definition in the Bill. Therefore, it is possible to argue, when one takes that into consideration, that the words now proposed are as wide as the previous words.
I should like to quote an example to the right hon. Gentleman. Suppose that there was a coal mining village with no other employment in it but coal mining. Suppose that there was no unemployment there at present and no reason to expect it in the immediate future. Under the wording which the Minister now proposes, the Board of Trade could not act


in those circumstances. Under the wording of the 1945 Act, one could have argued that, although there was no unemployment either present or to be expected, nevertheless the distribution of industry was such in that area that such a condition might arise. I am not saying whether it would be right to act or whether it would be right not to act in those circumstances. I am not arguing that at the moment, but it is perfectly clear that the words of the 1945 Act were wider, at any rate in this respect, than the words which the right hon. Gentleman is now putting before us.
Though we agree that it is a considerable advance, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman has come rather more than half-way to meet us—and I am being charitable to him—he really cannot contradict the views of my hon. Friends that these words, even now, will not be as wide as those of the Act which is being repealed. If he does he himself is confused.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out subsection (6).
We are proposing here—and this is an important point which was not debated at all during the Committee stage—that the Government and the Committee should not include in the Bill these words in subsection (6):
The powers conferred by this Part of this Act shall not be exercisable after the expiration of seven years from the commencement thereof unless Parliament otherwise determines.
If this subsection remains in the Bill, it means that all the positive powers in the Bill will cease to operate at the end of seven years, unless new legislation is passed. In our opinion, that is a totally unnecessary provision and ought to be struck out of the Bill. We challenged the President of the Board of Trade about it on Second Reading, and I think on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", though there was no Amendment. The only reason which the right hon. Gentleman could give for inserting these very odd words in the Bill were that it would be a good thing to allow Parliament, at the end of seven years, to review the whole matter, and see how we were getting on.
We find that completely unconvincing. For one thing, even if we do not have these words in the Bill, and if the powers

continued in being without any need for Parliament to reinstate them, it would he possible to debate the matter whenever we wished. There are all sorts of methods by which the House can debate unemployment and the distribution of industry, as the Minister well knows, and it is not necessary to insert this provision in the Bill so that the matter can be debated when it ought to be debated.
If there is to be a sound argument for putting in this subsection, the Government must show that there is a particular reason why these powers should expire. After all, the Minister might have argued in the same way about almost any Bill coming before the House which deals with subjects which we wish to debate from time to time, and that therefore, the whole of the Act should expire after seven years in order that the position might be reviewed. But the Government did not apply that argument to the Rent Act, and there is no provision to that effect in that Act. Nor do we find such a Clause in the Homicide Act, which could be another example chosen at random, although that might be an interesting subject for debate.
Coming rather nearer home, there was no Clause of this kind in the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, which would have gone on indefinitely if no action had been taken, nor indeed in the Distribution of Industry (Finance) Act, 1958, which the present Government themselves introduced. It is very extraordinary that they should have introduced it, albeit the minor amending Act in 1958 put in no provision that it should expire at the end of five or seven years. Yet, when they were consolidating the whole of the powers, as they claim to be doing in this Bill, they should put in this Clause to state when these whole operations should come to an end.
This would only be justified if the problems which the Bill is intended to meet were temporary and emergency ones and not a permanent part of our economic life. I say without hesitation that the problems which we are meeting here are likely to last as long as British industry and employment. For one thing, the drift of population and industry to London is a permanent long-term factor, and not a temporary one. Can any hon. Member honestly think that


that drift is likely to come to an end in any foreseeable future?
The whole problem of expanding and contracting industries, as the Minister must know, is a permanent problem, and not one just of a few years or even a few post-war years or anything of the kind. It may well be that the industries which will be contracting ten years' hence will be different from those expanding now. Some will be expanding and some will be contracting, and there will be some areas particularly hit by unemployment. The whole merit of these powers, and I think the Minister will be with me here, is that if we get a situation in which the coal industry, on which some areas are largely dependent, is contracting, or the cotton industry, we can ensure that the slack is taken up, and the contraction, though it hits the industry, does not hit the whole area as well. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that for some mysterious reason, seven or ten years' hence, all this will cease to be true? Obviously, he cannot.
I give one further example. The drift of the population, which is one of the factors giving rise to this problem, is not a temporary one here. It is going on all over the world, and there is no reason to think that, as mechanisation proceeds in agriculture—and that is the real cause of it—it will abate or disappear either.
For all these reasons, we believe that these powers are not merely necessary, but should be a permanent part of the planning machinery of this country. They are not a bit of emergency aid for an odd, temporary problem which is going to disappear in a few years. To imagine that is totally to misconceive the whole operation. There is no justification whatever for this foolish subsection, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who I do not believe can disagree with my argument, will meet us even at this late stage.

Mr. Gower: I am rather surprised that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and his colleagues should have taken this view of the Clause. I recall that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, this matter was raised on Second Reading, and I also recall that there were certain arguments along

the lines he mentioned today, but the right hon. Gentleman also said—and I quote his words—that it was very extraordinary that a similar Clause was not contained in earlier legislation. Surely it would be even more extraordinary if in framing new legislation at this moment, we took no account of experience gained in implementing previous legislation.
Surely the experience of the 1945 Act and of previous legislation was that, while it confererd undoubted benefits on certain areas in the country, it failed to touch certain fringe areas outside the Development Areas. In other words, by perhaps 1950 or 1953, the Distribution of Industry Act had shown itself to be somewhat inflexible, and its benefits were limited to certain areas which needed major assistance at the end of the war or in the inter-war years, thereby depriving certain areas like North-West Wales to quote one example, of the assistance which they required.

Mr. Jay: Surely, if that is so, the hon. Gentleman must be able to show that the remedy was not to terminate the powers altogether at the end of seven years; but to extend the Development Areas which could be done under the previous Act.

Mr. Gower: Not at all. To extend the Development Areas in that way would be to spread the butter rather more thinly.
Reverting to my argument, anyone who looks at this objectively in the light of the experience of implementing earlier legislation can see that after a certain period of time, there was need to consider legislation of a slightly different kind. In his speech the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) emphasised that we are living in a rapidly changing age, in a very dynamic period in our history. I respectifully submit to the Committee that the fact that this age is changing so quickly, and that this is such a dynamic change, will make probable the need for a further review of this Measure in a shorter period rather than a longer one, as compared with the period in which the previous legislation became obsolescent. Certainly, at the end of seven years it would be beneficial to have an absolute necessity for new legislation to be considered.


This Bill is designed to meet a particular problem, namely, high unemployment.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman knows that when this Bill is enacted it will be the only substantial Measure on the Statute Book to deal with this problem, because the whole of the 1945 Act is repealed. We are, therefore, now considering what will be the only Act of Parliament under which Parliament has power to act in this matter. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that at the end of seven years there will be no need of any legislation of this kind? If he agrees that there will be a need for legislation at the end of seven years, because this is a permanent problem, why include seven years in the Bill?

Mr. Gower: I have said that there will be a need for legislation of perhaps a very different kind at the end of seven years, and for that reason I think that my case and that of my right hon. Friend is strengthened. I hope that he will reject the Amendment.
Reverting to the argument which the right hon. Gentleman interrupted, the Bill is designed to deal with the problem of much unemployment in certain parts of the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite want to bring in other things as well. They want to deal with other areas where unemployment is not severe and to apply the Bill to them. Indeed, some of their Amendments have that purpose in mind.
It may be, as I hope, that after seven years we shall have largely solved the problem of severe unemployment and will be able to contemplate the areas of not so severe unemployment. Therefore, I should think that it would be beneficial that this Parliament, or its successor, should be able to contemplate the problem in seven years' time, not only in the light of our experience today but of the experience which Parliament and the Board of Trade will then have of the operation of this Measure.

Mr. Willis: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is a simple one, that without this provision being in the Bill, the Bill can be amended and brought up to date at any time Parliament or a Government decides to do so. With this provision in the

Bill it is more than likely that the Government will wait seven years before taking any action, because Ministers will always come along to the Dispatch Box and say, "We are bound to review this at the end of seven years". That is a good alibi for a Government which does not want to do anything and the speech of the hon. Gentleman did not show a great deal of understanding of Parliamentary processes.
This subsection is really a testimonial to the outworn economic ideas to which the President of the Board of Trade gives expression from time to time. What really underlies the subsection is the argument which we have heard often from the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that private enterprise is all right, it can solve its problems, but it needs a little Government assistance now and then to help it along. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be a schizophrenic, because he says things and then tries to do something different when in office. What I expect is at the back of his mind is that, if only we give private enterprise some assistance now, it will solve the problem and everything in the garden will be lovely. That is a lot of nonsense, because it becomes increasingly obvious as we progress that private enterprise is to get more and more assistance, not simply one dose but an increasing amount of assistance.
I rise because this subsection is particularly unfortunate in the case of Scotland. I do not know what the Secretary of State was doing to agree to a subsection limiting these provisions to seven years. Even if the President of the Board of Trade does not know, surely the Minister of State knows that unemployment in Scotland is a long-term problem. This has been said so many times in Scotland over twenty-five years that I thought it would at least by this time have penetrated into the minds of a Tory establishment in St. Andrew's House. I cannot understand this. The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) has issued documents, the most recent one last year, in which it has stated that this is a long-term problem that can be solved only by long-term measures, and everyone knows that this is true.

Mr. Gower: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Council, just


as the Welsh and Ulster Councils, has powers outside the operation of this Bill which will be permanent. Those powers will be used to steer industry to Scotland, either within the provisions of this Bill or outside it.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman really does not understand the Scottish Council. In one sense it is powerless. At least it has no statutory power, and it has no power other than to assist industry in many ways. It has issued exceedingly valuable reports, the burden of which has been generally accepted even by progressive Tories—if there is such a thing as a progressive Tory in Scotland—namely, that this is a long-term problem. Certainly, in the case of Scotland, to specify a period of seven years is failing to face the realities of the situation.
This comes of trying to offer blanket solutions to the problem of unemployment. The Government are trying to think in terms of the country as a whole, whereas what the Government ought to be doing is to he thinking about different parts of the country and their different needs—I see the Parliamentary Secretary pointing his finger to something, I do not know what.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): The Bill.

Mr. Willis: But the Bill does not do that satisfactorily, as we shall show later, maybe at rather considerable length. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] We do not mind obliging if hon. Gentlemen would like us to promise to do that. We should have had a separate Bill for Scotland but, not having had one, at least we expected that the Bill we have would recognise the special circumstances of Scotland, and those circumstances are of such a character that we must have a long-term programme. In view of this, I should have thought that the Minister would have put in a provision that this did not apply to Scotland.
There is the other aspect which my hon. Friends have mentioned and it is that, as we go forward, it becomes increasingly obvious that industry must change with increasing rapidity. It is also obvious that with increasing rapidity we must recognise and welcome change and take the necessary steps to bring it about. That being so, does not

this provision seem to be a little uncalled for? There is no reason why it should be in the Bill.
The reason which has been given, that we shall then have a chance to look at the problem again, is not a very good one, because the Government could give us that chance any time they liked. We could do it on a Supply day whenever we liked. We could simply ask for the Votes of the Board of Trade to be put on the Notice Paper and debate this matter. Therefore, the reason given is no reason at all. It is just an excuse given by the President of the Board of Trade to justify a subsection that satisfies some of the outworn economic prejudices which characterise most of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches if not his actions.

Mr. Tom Browne: In a few words I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who, I understand, is to reply to the debate on this Amendment, if he can submit to hon. Members on this side of the Committee any logical reason why this subsection should be inserted in the Bill. If he can, we will put up both hands. But I am afraid that he will not be able to do that.
For the life of me I cannot understand why the subsection should be inserted in the Bill, because, if it is, many of the districts will find, both in the very near future and in the distant future, that it will operate against them. All the arguments which we have heard from the Government benches have been to the effect that unemployment will come to an end and that there will be no need for the Bill.
It is quite true to say that in Scotland there is every justification for the Bill being put on the Statute Book as speedily as possible. The position may not be the same in other parts of the country, but it would appear from the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite that unemployment will come to an end. We have heard that for many years.
The Act of 1945 attempted to deal with unemployment, but the problem has not yet been fully dealt with. It is still with us, and as long as we have the present industrial system we shall have unemployment with us until the crack of doom. It is true that we may be able


to reduce it to the least possible minimum by legislation and by industrial organisation, but I believe that we shall never completely solve the problem of unemployment. An hon. Member opposite, who I am sorry to see has left the Chamber, advanced the argument that every district was alike and that in a certain number of years the problem of unemployment would he solved.
Let us reflect for a moment upon our experience of operating the 1945 Act. If this subsection had been included in that Act many of the districts which have had the benefit of diversification of industry would never have had it. The matter can, and should, be analysed and examined by the Department. I know something about it because I happen to come from a district where, just like a bolt from the blue, whole collieries went out of commission in 1937. We could not get diversification of industry brought to us, to districts which go down and down until they become ghost towns and which had almost 80 per cent. unemployment in 1930–33.
If it was essential to leave such a subsection out of the 1945 Act, not because that Measure was sponsored by a Labour Government but because it was common sense not to tie the Government down to a specific period, then surely it is essential to omit it from this Measure If the subsection is inserted in the Bill, I have a vision of what will happen in south-west Lancashire. It may not happen in five, six or even seven years, but the subsection will, as I understand it, affect many of the districts which I have in mind.
5.15 p.m.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to say why, if it was essential not to put a subsection of this character into the 1945 Act—we are dealing particularly with an unemployment situation in industrial areas which are becoming worked out—it is necessary to put it into a Bill calculated to solve or prevent unemployment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give hon. Members on this side of the Committee at least one logical reason why the subsection should be inserted in the Bill. I support the Amendment because I do not believe that the subsection should be in a Bill of this character which has for

its objective the solution of unemployment in these islands and particularly Scotland.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade or the Secretary of State for Scotland will speedily rise and accept the Amendment, because if they do not they are supporting something that is really fatuous if not, indeed, rather dangerous. I do not know whether they heard the Leader of the House read out the business for this week. Yesterday we dealt with the Population (Statistics) Bill. That had its origin in 1938 and was to last for ten years. It was supposed to lapse in 1948, but every year for eleven years the Government have been bringing it forward and continuing it for a further twelve months. This week we are dealing with the Requisitioned Houses Bill. That was to lapse, too. I think that this is the second time that the Government have said that they need another few years in which to deal with the problem.
The hon. Member for Fife, Fast (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart), the former Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, will remember a Bill relating to the digging of potatoes by school children which was to last for three years. That Measure is still being carried on from year to year.
What does the subsection mean? It means that this much heralded piece of legislation, the Local Employment Bill, has got to come to an end after seven years. It is a proclamation on the part of the Tory Government that they are going to cure unemployment in seven years. But it took them eight years before they could give us any legislation at all. Just before the General Election we heard that they were to introduce a major Bill to deal with the problem of unemployment. We heard that they were getting down to the business of seeing what was wrong with Scotland and were to produce a Bill. They have now produced a Bill which will last for seven years.
Is it that the problem with which we are dealing will be wiped out in seven years' time and that therefore the Bill requires this subsection? Does anyone believe that? Does the Secretary of State believe it? It will take him about seven years to get any jobs made available under the Bill. One of my hon. Friends spoke about the need for speed in getting the Bill through for Scotland,


but everything being done in Scotland is being done under the old legislation and can be done under that legislation.

Mr. Willis: We have had nothing new.

Mr. Ross: We are convinced that the Government themselves know that they cannot cure the problem of unemployment in seven years. The Bill gives the people of Scotland the idea that the Government regard unemployment as something trifling which requires only temporary legislation, and we are dependent upon back benchers to raise these questions from, I am glad to say, both sides of the Committee. I was glad to hear the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) speaking for her area and talking about the failure of her Government in that area.

Dame Irene Ward: I was not allowed to say it.

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Lady had taken the trouble to read the Amendment, she would have found ways and means of keeping in order.
It is the attitude of the Government that worries the people of Scotland. They get the impression that the Government do not regard unemployment as important. Since the Government introduced the Bill and made all their speeches about discovering how important unemployment was, unemployment in Scotland has risen from just over 80,000 to 98,000. I guarantee that there are now over 100,000 people unemployed.
This legislation will last for only seven years. Do the Government think that these weapons of attack on unemployment will be so little used that they will be rusty after seven years and might as well be declared dead? It is surely not the task of the Parliamentary Secretary to try to persuade us that the retention of the subsection means that the Government will give Parliament a chance to reconsider the whole position after seven years. As everyone knows, we can reconsider the matter at any time we like. The Government can bring forward legislation and we can press for legislation, certainly for debates. We will have debates, I assure the Government, on unemployment in Scotland long before seven years have elapsed.
Who convinced the Secretary of State for Scotland that it was sensible to specify the seven years? Would the authority of the Bill or of the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland or anyone be affected by withdrawing the subsection? It would make the Bill much more sensible. As it is, it gives the impression that the Government do not care very much about this temporary legislation and that nobody believes that they will cure the problem in seven years. To suggest that we must wait for seven years for a new Bill is quite wrong. One hon. Member opposite told us that we will get new legislation in seven years' time. Where is that stated in the Bill? All that will happen after seven years will be that this Bill will lapse and nothing will be put in its place. Let the Government save themselves from their fatuous and silly attitude. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment.

Dame Irene Ward: My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) made a good point about the seven years, because it is important that in matters of this kind we should be able to review the situation within a reasonable time. If we have legislation with an unlimited period, sometimes it is difficult to get the Opposition or the usual channels to agree to debate matters which are covered by an Act or Parliament which is in permanent operation. Therefore, I do not altogether disagree with the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend.
I am, however, bound to say that, having listened to both Wales and Scotland, it is about time that England should have a chance to say a word. The Conservative Government have been in power, I am glad to say, for quite a long time and I want to know whether, if the period of seven years is retained in the Bill, we on the North East Coast can look forward to having a visit from the President of the Board of Trade, from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and some of the Treasury officials, so that within the seven years we shall know that the people who are concerned with our future know what is happening on the North East Coast.
I do not want to get you up against me again, Mr. Blackburn—

The Temporary Chairman: I am afraid that I am getting up again. I think that the hon. Lady knows that she is out of order.

Dame Irene Ward: I do not see why I should be out of order, Mr. Blackburn. I have listened to long speeches from Scotland and Wales and I do not believe that the affairs of one's area can be conducted merely by arguing generalities. The North East Coast is just as welcome to be mentioned in this Committee as Scotland and Wales.

The Temporary Chairman: I do not underestimate the importance of the North East Coast. I have been in the House of Commons with the hon. Lady for a long time and, therefore, I realise the importance of the North East Coast. We are not discussing that, however. We are discussing whether to retain the subsection, which means that the Bill will lapse at the end of seven years. We are not discussing any one area but whether the Bill will lapse after seven years.

Dame Irene Ward: I am arguing from the viewpoint of the North East Coast that it might be a good idea for the Bill to last for seven years only. In the meantime, I hope that within those seven years, if my right hon. Friend argues that it is a good period to insert in the Bill, he will be able to see something of the North East Coast. That was all I wanted to know.

Mr. J. Rodgers: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who moved the Amendment, was quite right in saying that Parliament has an opportunity of discussing the problem of local employment at any time in various ways if it so desires, but the effect of the Amendment would be to remove the requirement that Parliament should have a n opportunity of examining the principles of the Bill after a reasonable period to see what we have achieved under it and whether any changes are required.
There seems to be a good deal of misunderstanding about why the seven-year period was included.

Mr. Willis: The subsection makes no provision for Parliament to consider anything. All it says is that the Bill will come to an end.

Mr. Rodgers: If the hon. Member waits until I complete my remarks, I will be able to answer that.
I noticed in reading the Report of the Committee stage of the Bill, when, alas, I was prevented from being present, that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) used the same argument as he has used this afternoon. On 8th December, the hon. Member asked the reason for the period of seven years and said:
It means that the Government are convinced either that they can cure the evil in seven years or that after seven years they will dismiss it as incurable and arc prepared then to do nothing at all about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1959; Vol. 615, c 388.]
That is nonsense. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock has a lively imagination, which leads him to see sinister motives where they do not exist. I have noticed this tendency in a great many of his speeches. He throws about adjectives like "silly" and "fatuous". They apply to his own speeches more often than he realises.
The subsection is not a statement by the Government that we consider unemployment to be of no account or that we shall have solved it within seven years. We agree with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North that there will be industries which are contracting and industries which are expanding. It is because we believe the problem may have changed and may require different solutions at the end of the seven-year period that we are suggesting to Parliament that the Bill should lapse then so that it will be considerd to see whether fresh powers are necessary.
5.30 p.m.
There is no magic about the period of seven years. It might have been five, six, seven, or eight years, but we selected seven years because it usually takes three or four years before a factory is built and is in working operation. The site has to be selected, the factory has to be erected, the tooling up of the factory has to be completed and labour has to be trained. That usually takes three or four years. We do not think that another three or four years after that is too short a period in which to see if the benefits provided by the Bill are solving local unemployment problems. It is a reasonable period in which to see how the Bill is operating.


It strikes me as odd that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) made the speech that he did. He first said that the Local Employment Bill was useless. Presumably therefore in seven years' time he would welcome the chance of passing a new Bill? Is it that hon. Gentlemen opposite have already given up hope that they will win the election which must take place before seven years expire? This seems to be a great confession of despondency in the ranks opposite. If we are re-elected during the seven-year period, we shall look at the Bill again to see if it requires change or amendment. If the right hon. Gentlemen opposite are in a position to form a Government after the next election presumably they will change the Bill and introduce new legislation.

Mr. G. R. Hitchison: Do I understand from what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying that it is not intended that this subsection should ever come into operation? That is to say, it is never to be the case that all the powers are to be no longer exercisable, and that this is all merely a peg on which a review can be hung?

Mr. Rodgers: At the end of seven years it will be for Parliament to decide whether to re-enact the legislation or to pass new legislation. We consider that seven years is a good period in which to take stock, to see how far we have got, and to consider whether any new problems are emerging. I therefore ask the Committee to resist the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: What will be the position of the management corporations if this subsection comes into operation?

Mr. Rodgers: Presumably they will lapse if the Bill is not re-enacted. If it is, they will continue.

Mr. Mitchison: Who would look after the property which they had been looking after?

Mr. Peart: I was about to ask that question because I am concerned about people who are now employed under the Board of Trade but who may be taken out of their positions by the management corporations. Are we to understand from the reply of the Minister that they will now have security for only seven years if they are employed by the corporations? Is that what the Minister is

saying in reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)?
If the management corporations are to do their job properly they must have the best men. The right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) once paid tribute to West Cumberland and to the efficiency of the administration there. The men in the administration are very anxious about their positions. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his quick reply to my hon. and learned Friend. I want the people employed by the corporations to have a measure of security. That measure of security is not provided by specifying a period of seven years.
I do not want to wander into the arguments advanced by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). We in West Cumberland do not wait for the Minister to come to us. We go to the Minister. I am glad that the hon. Lady's hon. Friends have met representatives from my area, and that they will be meeting other representatives shortly. We are worried that these powers in the Bill will not be used effectively. It is a mistake to stipulate a seven-year period.
The Minister made a personal attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock. My hon. Friend has been very diligent and vigilant, and has strongly criticised the Bill. I, too, believe it to be a bad Bill. Although many of my hon. Friends' arguments have been valid ones, they have been rejected. This is a bad Bill and I have said so not only in Committee but on Second Reading. While the powers are given by
the Bill, the question arises how those powers will be used. Much will depend on the spirit in which the Government and the Minister concerned approach the problem.
I come back to my first point. I hope that the people who will be concerned with the planning of industry in the areas affected will have the security which they would appear not to have if one accepts the Minister's reply.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I submit that the Government are in a dilemma. If the Bill is a good one, why not continue it for a period which will enable it to be made really effective? Why not make it permanent? If it is a bad Bill, it can be


repealed. Subsection (6) is therefore unnecessary.
May I draw the attention of the Committee to what Viscount Stuart of Findhorn, the former right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn, said before his translation to another place about the earlier Bill which is not an Act. It has been suggested that behind subsection (6) there is the idea that the Bill may never be put into force; it is window dressing. Also, at the end of seven years it may be used to repeal or alter the powers given by Clause 1. Mr. James Stuart, as he then was, said:
Great play has been made of the benefits which would accrue from the application of the Distribution of Industry Act, but to put it brutally, very little had happened and the Act had never really been put into force.
The right hon. Gentleman had been Secretary of State for Scotland for many years and the blame for not putting the Act into force rests on him.
That is what happened to the earlier Act, and it may well be that my hon. Friends who have suggested that this Bill may not be put into force are right. One has only to look at the Bill to see what has to be done in the seven years.

Sir David Robertson: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a statement by Viscount Stuart of Findhorn. Will he give the Committee particulars of where that speech was made, and where it was reported?

Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon Gentleman has asked me that before. Mr. Stuart, as he then was, made that speech in Glasgow last autumn. I cannot at the moment give the hon. Member the exact time or place when it was made, but it was duly reported in the Glasgow Herald at the time.

Sir D. Robertson: When the hon. and learned Member spoke in this House on 11th March, 1959, about industry and employment in North-East Scotland he referred to a statement made by Viscount Stuart prior to 11th March. I have looked up that record and I find that the only James Stuart who made a speech shortly before 11th March was a gentleman who was the chairman of the Scottish Manufacturers' Association. It is obvious that the hon. and learned

Gentleman was confusing the former Secretary of State for Scotland with someone else. The hon. and learned Gentleman has now said that this statement was made by Viscount Stuart in the autumn. I am rather confused. Which is correct?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member is trying to skate away on a quite minor point, for the obvious purpose of putting me off my argument. He will not succeed. He knows very well that I quoted the speech in a letter to the Scotsman some time ago. He then had an opportunity to contradict me, but he was afraid to take it. In his great independence, he failed to do so. Now he is trying to disturb my argument by introducing this comparatively irrelevant matter, and I shall give way to him no more.
One has only to look at the arrangement of Clauses in the Bill to see the many complications and the varied matters with which its administrators will have to deal in the short period of seven years. Subsection (6) says:
The powers conferred by this Part of this Act shall not be exercisable after the expiration of seven years from the commencement thereof unless Parliament otherwise determines.
What are those powers? Clause 2 deals with the provision of premises and sites; Clause 3 with building grants; Clause 4 with the general power to make loans or grants to undertakings; Clause 5 with derelict land, and Clause 6 with payments for removal and resettlement of key workers and their dependants. All those matters will have to be dealt with in the seven years. It is obvious that wise industrialists will not engage in those things, even under Governmental guidance or assistance, unless they are assured of a certain amount of continuity.
The administration of the Bill will involve the expenditure of money not only by the Government but by industrialists, who will be asked to build factories and roads, and houses for the workers. Are the key workers and their dependants to have a shake-up at the end of the period of seven years, and be forced to move to other places? Are families to be broken up? One has only to consider the possibilities which may arise within this limited period to realise how unsatisfactory the position is. I am sure that if the Committee considers this matter in a practical way it will realise


that the period of seven years is quite impractical and wrong. I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I agree with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) that it is very important that the staffs of management corporations should have the highest qualifications, and should also have security of employment. The people on the estates should also have security of tenure.
In answer to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) I would point out that at the end of the seven-year period it is only the powers which will lapse under the Bill, unless Parliament otherwise determines. The management corporations will continue. They are the 99-year lessees of the Board of Trade, and the firms on the estates are their tenants. Therefore, they will all go on. I want to make the position clear in order to remove any doubts which staffs of management corporations may have. It is important that they should not feel that there is a limitation of seven years on their security of employment.

Mr. Mitchison: Will it be as simple as that? One of the powers provides that the Board of Trade will defray the expenses of the management corporations. There is no other provision for their expenses, and if the Bill lapses they will have to go on without any money, and without any power to incur expenses. Can the Parliamentary Secretary deal with that point?

Mr. Rodgers: The necessary action would be taken by Parliament to correct that situation, but there is no question of the management corporations not continuing to exist.

Mr. Peart: The Bill does not say so.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Rodgers: I should like to answer the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). She asked whether the President of the Board of Trade and I will visit North-East England. I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend, but I have already written to my hon. Friend to say that I intend to visit the area and North-East England generally as soon as possible.

Dame Irene Ward: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling me that he will be coming up. I hope that he will not take it amiss if I say that it is much more important to know that the President of the Board of Trade is coming up. Will he send a message to his right hon. Friend to ask whether he will empower the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the Committee that the President of the Board of Trade will come up?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that my right hon. Friend has already heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth has said. There is no need for me to pass any messages.
Many of the remarks that have been made show that a wrong interpretation has been placed upon the spirit in which the words relating to the seven-year period have been inserted in the Bill. It is our belief that at the end of the period of seven years it would be good for Parliament to review the position in order to see how far the exercise of these powers has helped solve the problem of local unemployment, and to decide whether any new power or strengthening of the existing powers is required.

Mr. Peart: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the procedure of a Select Committee reporting on the structure of Development Areas and powers in relation to them, should be followed here? Two Committees have investigated the working of the powers provided by the Distribution of Industry Acts. That is a much more satisfactory way of proceeding.

Mr. Rodgers: That may be so, but it is not the point now before the Committee. We are dealing with the question whether the Clause should be left in the Bill or deleted. We feel that it would be wrong to delete it, and I therefore ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: The one thing that is perfectly clear is that the Government never intended the subsection to come into operation. If they are in power in seven years' time they can easily bring in amending legislation. The only conceivable reason for putting in the subsection is that in some way or another it will oblige the next Labour Government, which they anticipate will get in at


the next Election, to take some action in this matter.
Let us see what effect the subsection would have if it came into force. It is such an idiotic supposition that one wonders why the Government have chosen this remarkable—and as far as I know unprecedented—method of obliging themselves and any other Governments to take action which they can already take quite easily. If the subsection came into operation the Bill would not lapse, but Part I would. The powers given to the Board of Trade under Part I would no longer be exercisable, but all the machinery in connection with industrial development certificates would stay.
Before the war, powers were taken in the positive sense—the type of powers given under Part I—but they failed because there were no corresponding powers to enable the Government of the day to keep people out of places where there was no need for them and in that way to encourage them to go to what were then called the distressed areas. That was the position under the 1934 Act.
Ever since then, during and after the war, Governments have recognised that there powers are complementary. If it is desired to persuade people to build factories in particular areas—distressed areas, or whatever we like to call them—there must be a complementary power, given these days by an industrial development certificate, to prevent the setting up of factories in some places where labour is not available, where there is no need for a factory and where there should not be a factory.
In this subsection, if one takes it seriously, the Government are proposing to take away one power and leave the other. If we consider how it will work out we find the most absolutely idiotic result. A management corporation may let premises. Is it to be confined to lets for no more than seven years? If not, what happens when the management corporation no longer has powers at the end of seven years? It is not to have any expenses because the Board of Trade will not have power to pay them?
We really get the most absurd position. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), it is sometimes the practice to pass

temporary legislation. I could add several other instances to those given by my hon. Friend. What happens then is that what is passed as temporary legislation proves to be required either permanently or for a much longer period, and has to be renewed again and again.
I have never heard of a Government including a subsection in a Bill and defending it by saying, "In no circumstances is this subsection coming into operation. Either we shall continue the Bill as it is, that is to say, repeal this subsection, or bring in some amending legislation." If the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to say that that is not what he said, by all means let him do so. But it is what I understood him to say and what I think the Committee as a whole understood.
If that be the position, what is the sense of this? If the Government are still in power they can bring in amending legislation when the time comes. If it is desired merely to continue the legislation, they will still have to take up the time of Parliament with a little Bill designed to repeal this subsection. Surely the sensible thing to do is to accept the Amendment and not to put this highly unusual provision in the Bill. not to clutter up a Measure with statements so bad and uncertain that the Government feel sure it will have to be revised in seven years' time. They should let it go in the ordinary way and bring in amending legislation either at the end of seven years or earlier.
After all, the preceding legislation was amended from time to time and there was no difficulty about that. No one ever said that Clauses should be included which would lapse in three or five years. No one introduced this extraordinary provision when bringing in amending legislation. I have never met anything like it in any previous Act of Parliament. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to quote any instance where a Government brought in a subsection of this sort and then defended it by telling the House that in no circumstances could or would such a subsection come into operation, and that one of two things would be necessary, either to continue the legislation or to amend it.


I will gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can quote such an instance. If he cannot, why do the Government require this extraordinary goad on their own activities? Cannot they be relied on to be sufficiently awake to do something when the time comes? Do they intend so thoroughly to allow this legislation to become a dead letter, and to forget all the problems of the human beings for whose relief this Bill is supposed to have been introduced, that they need some provision of this sort to remind them that, at the end of seven years, like some sleeping beauty, they have to wake up and do something about it?
What is the object of this kind of nonsense? Is there any conceivable reason for persisting with it? Does the Parliamentary Secretary or any other member of the Government, having had the opportunity of looking calmly at the reasons they themselves have given for the inclusion of this subsection, suppose that it serves any other purpose than to make them and their Bill look uncommonly silly?

Mr. J. Rodgers: The Amendment and the speeches in support of it seem to me to imply that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are satisfied that this Bill as amended in Committee will be so good that it will remain on the Statute Book for ever and ever. That may be so. But we hope so vigorously to use the powers contained in this Bill that in seven years' time the whole situation may have altered and that new and changed powers will be desirable. Our past experience in this connection has shown that although some hon. Members have referred to the 1945 Act as the "Ark of the Covenant", a great many changes have been required since it was passed. It may well be that had we had this provision in 1945 we might have done much better. We think it a valuable provision that Parliament should be obliged at the end of seven years to review the whole working of this machinery.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I understand the whole of the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary to be that at the end of seven years it may be desirable for Parliament to examine the situation again in order to deal with this problem. It is not

proposed by this subsection to end the whole of the Bill after seven years, but only Part I. If the Bill be passed in its present form, Part I will cease to have effect at the end of seven years unless Parliament decides otherwise, but the other parts of the Bill will go on.
There are references to Part I in other parts of the Bill. Assuming that this Bill becomes an Act in its present form, at the end of seven years Part I will cease to have effect, but the rest of the Bill will remain an Act of Parliament containing references to Part I which at that time will no longer exist. Is it not a curious thing that one part of the Bill comes to an end in that way? Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government are providing for one part of the Bill to terminate at the end of seven years while the other parts are to continue?

Mr. Rodgers: The provision in this subsection does and would mean that at the end of seven years the powers under Part I would lapse. But the whole object of the subsection is not only to review the powers in Part I of the Bill but also to make it obligatory on Parliament to examine how the Government have used the powers. We believe that in a period of expansion in industry when we are using these powers vigorously, in some areas—we hope in all of them—the economic position will have changed considerably so that the situation should be looked at again
I have explained to the Committee as carefully as I can why we selected a period of seven years. It may be that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would argue that the period should be six years or eight years, but we still feel that the principle behind the subsection is right.

Mr. Griffiths: Let us assume that the Bill becomes an Act in its present form. There are sixteen Clauses in Part I which will cease to have effect after seven years. The title of Clause 18, which is in Part II and which will still exist is:
Determinations under principal enactment to take particular account of purposes of Part I.
If the Amendment be rejected, that part of the Bill will still be an Act of Parliament and contain a reference to the present Part I which will then cease to


exist. Do the Government think, even from their own standpoint, that this is the best way 10 deal with the matter?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Rodgers: I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Although the powers lapse under Part I of the Bill the Act would still remain.

Mr. Mitchison: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that it will not be dead, but merely inanimate, unable to move, a kind of semi-corpse suspended in midair. The hon. Gentleman has been unable to tell us of any other case in which this or any other Government, however misguided, have been quite so foolish as to bring in a subsection of this sort and to defend it only by saying that we must look at things again in seven years' time.
The hon. Gentleman is even more certain than I am that he will not be in power in seven years' time, for if he were he could make abundant opportunity to carry out any review and bring in any amending legislation. He would have to bring in some legislation because, as he admits, this subsection cannot possibly operate. Is not the more sensible and dignified thing to do at this stage to let this subsection go? It is utterly indefensible, a piece of constitutional idiocy which I did not
think even this Government could think up. Could they not recognise that and accept the Amendment to drop the subsection?

Mr. George Chetwynd: The Parliamentary Secretary has made five or six attempts to convince the Committee of what he means by this subsection. Even after that, all of us on this side remain absolutely unconvinced that he is doing the right thing by retaining it. I am sure that any sensible hon. Member of his own party would also press upon him the desirability of dropping this subsection from the Bill altogether.
What worries me more than the mechanics of the question is the attitude of mind shown in the approach by the Parliamentary Secretary. He seems to think either that the problem of unemployment in local areas will be solved within seven years, or that the Government will have time after seven years to bring in something which will solve the problem. No one in his right mind would

believe that we shall solve this problem within seven years. What is likely to happen under the Bill is that we may be able to deal with a pocket of unemployment in one area, but that as soon as we do that it will pop up somewhere else. Consequently, the Government will be hopping about with first-aid measures to deal with unemployment locally and not getting to the roots of the problem.
It is clear to us that the cause of unemployment is fundamental. It is not something we can solve by bringing diversified light industry from London to the North-East, to Wales or to Scotland without, at the same time, tackling the underlying causes. To do that we obviously need a long-term plan affecting the location of our basic industries. No matter how successful we are in bringing in small light industries, if the basic industries upon which the industrial areas depend are going down there is no solution to unemployment in those areas.
The speeches of the Parliamentary Secretary have shown that he is not making a fundamental approach to the problem. They were shot through with complacency from beginning to end. Where basic industries such as coal mining and shipbuilding are in decline, over the next seven to ten years changes in technical ideas, the atomic energy programme, and so on, will have a tremendous effect on all our industries. All this needs looking into quietly by experts who can bring forward plans and solutions. It will take much more than seven years to go to the root causes of unemployment. It would be much better to leave out a period and to let the Measure run until such time as a Government, of whatever complexion, are in a position to deal with the matter thoroughly, than to tinker with it as this Government are doing.
The only argument the Parliamentary Secretary brought forward is that by putting in this date we shall have a chance to examine the position and to see what needs doing. I shudder to think what would have been the position if we had had a provision of that kind in the 1945 Act. No industry in its right mind would have accepted any inducement whatever to go to a Development Area if it knew that at the end of seven years the whole thing might be scrapped and all the security wiped away. We


had another look at the problem. We did not need a provision in an Act of Parliament to tell us to look at it. There were frequent examinations of the working of the Act, another Distribution of Industry Act in 1950 and another Act in 1958. We did not need a Clause in a Bill telling us that the Bill would come to an end in order to help us to decide whether to continue the Measure or to put something in its place.
It is an extraordinary doctrine that we cannot consider the effect of an Act of Parliament unless we put in a date when the Act is to come to an end. If we adopted that procedure in relation to every Measure brought before the House we should be continually occupied in revising Acts of Parliament and not getting on with the business before us. The real significance of this proposal is the effect it will have, not only upon existing concerns in the present Development Areas, or whatever areas may be selected under the Bill. The Government started thinking about the Bill just before the last election and we started putting it into legislative form in November-December last year. It is expected to be on the Statute Book, all being well, by April. That will be something like six months in which it has been before the House. If, in seven years' time the Act comes to an end, probably it would take another six months, depending on what the Government had in mind—perhaps longer—to get another Act on the Statute Book. In all that time there would be uncertainty and no movement. It is completely idiotic to think in those terms.
The Government would lose nothing at this stage if they said that they were convinced by the arguments put to them and accepted the Opposition Amendment. If they wanted, they could easily guarantee a review. There would be nothing in the world to stop them, or to stop us if we were the Government, from doing that. To stick their toes in and say, "All will be well, everything will be cured", when all sorts of things may happen, and to insist that the Measure shall come to an end after seven years, does not make sense. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot do better than that, I hope he will not come to the North-East, because it is quite clear that he will have nothing in the way of

encouragement to offer us. We should much rather that he kept away. We could perhaps look forward to the day when the President of the Board of Trade might come along. I hope that he will say to the Parliamentary Secretary, "Stop all this nonsense." If he wants to make a sixth intervention, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment.

Dame Irene Ward: Could my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that this subsection was not put in at the request of the Treasury? I begin to wonder whether the Treasury is the nigger in the woodpile. I am very suspicious of the Treasury. Could my hon. Friend give me an answer?

Mr. Lee: Mr. Lee rose—

Dame Irene Ward: May I not have an answer? Would I be in order, Sir William, in asking if we could have a representative of the Treasury present?

The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The hon. Lady knows that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Lee: When he last intervened the Parliamentary Secretary made a statement which startled us more than anything we had heard previously. In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), he said that after seven years the situation would be that although Part I remained on the Statute Book, all the powers in it would have disappeared. Is that the case? If so, it is a new situation. Are we to retain legislation on the Statute Book on the strict understanding that it means nothing and that, although Part I will remain on the Statute Book, none of the powers in it will be operative? If we are to do that, it is a most alarming situation.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has had an opportunity to refresh his mind on the point. If his statement is correct, it makes a mockery of the Committee for the Government to insist on this subsection remaining in the Bill. May I ask whether this point was clear to the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary when they included in the Bill this principle that the legislation would disappear in seven years? It appears to me that a


point has arisen which may not have been seen at that time. Will the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether they then understood that this was the effect of the subsection and that, in that knowledge, they nevertheless legislated as they have done?

Mr. Mitchison: What will happen to these management corporations if this subsection comes into effect? They will remain in existence, for there is no power to dissolve them or to defray their expenses. Since even members of the management corporations are not immortal, in due course there will be management corporations without any money and without any members but incapable of being dissolved without further legislation. Will the Parliamentary Secretary deal with that interesting point?

Mr. J. Rodgers: The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) gave one of the compelling reasons why the subsection should be retained. It is that past history shows that after 1945 it was necessary to review the legislation and to introduce new legislation in 1950, and that it was again necessary, within a few years, to produce new legislation in 1958. It therefore seems a very sensible course to say that Parliament should have the opportunity in seven years to review how we have used these powers and whether the powers need changing.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that the Treasury is not the nigger in the woodpile. The Treasury has brought no pressure to bear on us to include subsection (6).
I can assure the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) that we envisaged what has happened. What right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite assume is that Parliament will decide in seven years to let these powers lapse. That is not necessarily the interpretation. What probably will occur is that whichever party is in office will review what has happened to see whether the powers should continue unchanged or whether new powers should be introduced. It is a red herring to say that the powers would lapse.

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jay rose—

Mr. Rodgers: I will not give way at the moment.
I have already dealt with the question put by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) about management corporations.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I rise to support the Amendment, because I represent one of the areas most afflicted with the problems with which the Bill seeks to deal. I think it a very sensible Amendment and I am at a loss to understand the arguments advanced by the
Parliamentary Secretary against it. Indeed, I say that he has not given a single solid argument why he should not accept the Amendment. I admit that we have been given several excuses, but no reason has been adduced. I suggest that he should reconsider his attitude to the problem.
The Amendment is clear. It asks that the subsection should be deleted, and this would delete from the Bill any reference to the expiration of the powers after seven years. That will give some hope in certain parts of the country in so far as their industrial future is concerned.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a personal question? Has he experienced the unemployment problem in his constituency? Has the President of the Board of Trade experienced it? Do they realise the social destitution which it brings? Do they realise that it saps the moral fibre of our community? If the hon. Gentleman saw these unemployment queues growing year after year, as we see them in our part of the country, he would apply a much more reasonable attitude to the problem. I thought that it was facetious of him to make comparisons between the Act and the Bill. It is regrettable that he should make any comparisons, because it shows the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government in a very bad light. I ask him to look, for example, at the results achieved by the Labour Government's Act which he hopes to replace.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but he should restrict his remarks to the Amendment under consideration

Mr. Dempsey: I will do so.
The Parliamentary Secretary went to great pains to make comparisons, but


I will restrict myself to the Amendment and say frankly that it is not practicable under the existing economic system—and I am not becoming a sociologist in using that term—to solve in seven years a problem of more than forty years' standing. That is why the Amendment has been moved. For example, how is it possible to solve a long-term chronic illness by an immediate treatment? Those of us who come from parts of the country suffering from this problem are seriously perturbed at the lack of activity on the part of the Board of Trade. I do not think that the issue is being tackled as it should be tackled—in a successful way.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept the Amendment. I have heard the Government say repeatedly, "We can review the matter in seven years". The Parliamentary Secretary has said that. He could easily accept the Amendment and still review the position at the end of seven years. Indeed, it is obvious to some of us that we may be asking for a review long before the seven years have expired, because there is no doubt in my mind or that of my hon. Friends that unless we are earnest in our attitude towards developing full employment, we are wasting a good deal of time debating this and other Amendments. It has been made clear by some of my hon. Friends that it is folly to talk about terminating the Act before we have introduced it.
I earnestly appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to think again about this matter. If he is willing to face up to the country's economic situation and the industrial potential of the nation, he is bound to come to the conclusion that the Amendment is not only reasonable but should be accepted with a view to strengthening the Bill. Its intention is to strengthen the Bill and in no way to belittle it, and I very much regret the Parliamentary Secretary's fatuous utterances in dealing with the problem. It is too serious for facetious remarks to be introduced into this aspect of the debate. If the Parliamentary Secretary represented a constituency which had
an unemployment problem he would realise how grave it can be for an hon. Member who is faced with such a very serious local problem. He still has time to recant and regain the prestige he has obviously lost this evening. He can do

do quite simply by agreeing to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I am rather surprised at the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary to the requests and demands made from this side of the Committee. I was especially surprised at his rather personal attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I am always shocked when an hon. Member makes a personal attack rather than answers propositions put by the person whom he attacks. I always feel that when people do that they have no argument against the propositions.
This is a very serious matter. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt speaking on behalf of a large element on his side who believe that this intervention by the State or this pseudo-State planning in a very mild way is only a temporary proposition. I do not believe that it is. I believe that the time is coming when the State will have to intervene more and more in the economic affairs of our country. I believe that laissez faire has finished and that the State must be in partnership with industry.
The provision to end Part I seven years from its passing, which will be 1967, means that if the Government are in power that is the end of State intervention in the movement of industry. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that for fifty years there has been a movement of economic activity and population which has caused a complete lack of balance in the distribution of people.
The absurd situation exists in 1960 that while the Home Counties and London are choked with traffic other parts of the country are denuded of traffic loads, economic activity and population. The flow to the Metropolis must be checked and reversed. I shall never believe that it can be done in seven years, except by ruthless dictatorial action at the centre, which no one wants to see. If it is to be done by democratic methods, by debate and gentle persuasion, it will not take seven years, but at least two or three decades. Legislation is called for which will be regarded by the electorate not as temporary State action to deal with a temporary situation, but as legislation, the long-term


effect of which is to try to redress the balance of economic activity and the redistribution of population.
We in Scotland know full well that if the powers conferred in Part I are brought to an end after seven years the benefit to Scotland will be minute. Far more persuasion than that will be necessary. It is fair to assume that the standard of living and the level of economic activity will increase. It must if we are to survive. If it does not, we shall be in a very bad position indeed. Unless there is a stimulation of the production of capital goods in Scotland within the next five years it will be a terrible condemnation of the Government after eight and a half years in power. There must be more economic activity in Scotland. That will bring about an increased distribution of purchasing power. Unless there is a move by the Government to bring to Scotland light industries of all kinds to offset a regional pressure in the South for an increase in purchasing power in Scotland when there is no consumer product in Scotland to meet it—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not range too wide on the Amendment.

Mr. Bence: I am sorry, Sir William. I do not want to range too wide. I am trying to show that if the present economic expansion in Scotland, which is very moderate and is still in capital goods, continues over the next four years it will result in further stimulation down South. If it continues over the next four or five years it is obvious that an Act which comes to an end in seven years will leave the Government powerless to give further stimulation and direction to move more durable consumer industries to Scotland.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows my opinion on this, because he has heard it many times. I hold it strongly. If the Government wish to give any impression of their faith in playing a part in redistributing population and industries it is absurd to put in a period of seven years. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said, some Amendments refer to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, yet Part I will be repealed in 1967. This will lead to frightful confusion. Furthermore, under this Part of the Bill a grant may

be made in 1966 to finance an industry to go to Scotland and erect buildings. Under the terms of the grant the firm will have to
continue to serve the purposes of this Part of this Act",
which twelve months later will be repealed. What will be the position then, What will be the position of management corporations?
The Government in 1965 or 1966 may provide a great deal of finance to build a factory and then may let it on a long-term lease. Local authorities may provide houses for key workers. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of public funds may be used. Yet the obligation to serve the social purpose of solving the local unemployment problem will cease in 1967. I hope that I am wrong about that, but Clause 3 (3) says that the object of all this is to serve a social purpose.
Is it right that under Clause 3 (3) a condition of the grant is that the firm receiving it
will continue to serve the purposes of this Part of this Act"?
Part I is designed to help to solve the unemployment problem. If it goes, is there still an obligation on the part of the firm which has received the taxpayers' money to continue to serve that social and economic purpose? If it fails to do so, will the Government have any power to take back the grant? If they cannot, what does the provision that the firm
will continue to serve the purposes of this Part of this Act
mean?
I hope that I am wrong in all this, but I should like an answer to my question. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will meet the argument from this side of the Committee with far better resource than he has met our arguments in the past. I am absolutely certain that no one in Scotland, irrespective of political views, believes that any Government can solve in seven years inequality between economic activity in Scotland as compared with the Midlands and the South without taking absolutely dictatorial powers.

6.30 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Each time I have listened to the Parliamentary Secretary replying to parts of the debate I have become


more and more suspicious of the reason for the inclusion of subsection (6). At no time has he advanced a convincing argument for its retention. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) suggested that perhaps the Treasury had insisted on it, but from what has so far been said during the passage of the Bill I have no doubt that there is a group of the hon. Gentleman's own back benchers who do not like the Bill or anything in it. Perhaps the subsection has been inserted to appease them.
What are some of the reasons that the Government have given for it? The Parliamentary Secretary said that at the end of seven years they want to see how far they have succeeded in dealing with local unemployment. On another occasion, he has said that the Government would be vigorous in using the Bill's provisions and that at the end of seven years the whole face of those places would be changed. He has also said that it was right that the House should have a chance of reviewing what the Government with their various powers have been doing.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when the Bill is an Act we shall have it consistently under review. There are very many chances for the House to inquire into whether or not the Government are using their powers vigorously. That can be done
by Parliamentary Question, by debate, by using some of our Supply Days. The Government's work can be reviewed in those ways without the need for seven years to elapse. Both the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade must be well aware that if, at the end of two or three years, they came to the conclusion that the powers contained in the Bill were not sufficiently strong, they could bring in another Bill without any time limit at all.
As I say, on one occasion the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government would use the provisions vigorously and might change the face of local unemployment in these places in seven years. The President of the Board of Trade has recently been in my constituency. It is an area which, I imagine, will be covered by the Bill, and an area that will be named. For more than seven years the Government have

been very well aware of the needs of that area. They have known that its main industry was dying out. Had they vigorously used their powers under the 1945 Act, parts of the area might not have been in their present state.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) that so serious is the position in Scotland now that even after the most vigorous action the Government will not be able, in seven years, to solve the fundamental problems facing them. I also know that if they use the powers they are acquiring by the Bill—or even if they use those they already have under the 1945 Act—they could do a very great deal to improve the position.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us a cogent, convincing reason for the Government's determination to retain this subsection. I do not think that any of my hon. Friends accept the case he has put forward, but regard with very great suspicion the Government's insistence that subsection (6) should remain.

Mr. Manuel: The Amendment seeks to remove subsection (6). I am completely at one with my hon. Friends' arguments. If the Government really mean to deal with unemployment in Scotland—and I think now of the areas in my constituency where there is at present very severe unemployment—they will need more than seven years. My reason for wanting the deletion of the subsection is that I believe that in trying to solve unemployment the Government should be looking further ahead.
The Board of Trade should prepare a blueprint showing trends of employment, and trends of dying employment, in various areas. Such a blueprint would bring to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade the areas where industry is fading. A blueprint of future activities would show where we are geared far too much to the present heavy industries, where they will go out completely, and where the Board of Trade, if the Government mean what they say, will have to provide alternative employment.
There will be no chance of eradicating in seven years the unemployment that will undoubtedly arise. I have in mind


areas that are already sick with unemployment, and show tendencies of becoming even more sick—the coalfields, in many areas, and shipyards that are no longer getting orders. Do the Government think that that situation can be cured in seven years? Such a blueprint as I have mentioned would help the President of the Board of Trade to avoid, in advance, higher unemployment in those areas.
The Scottish unemployment position is getting worse. The worse it gets, the longer it will take to cure. Between December and January, the Scottish unemployment figures have gone up by more than 5,000, and the overall figure now verges on 100,000. The Board of Trade is thinking of tackling the matter within a period of seven years, but that is a very short time in the economic life of any nation. To think in such terms is too curbing. It must have a cramping influence. I am delighted to know that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland has been devoting some of his time to jumping around Scotland to try to get a balance in providing employment in the areas which are very sick at present.
I read a speech of an hon. and gallant Friend of his who, speaking at the annual meeting of his Conservative association, said that there was very little high unemployment in Scotland. I am amazed to hear that. Seven years is what we must stick to and I do not believe that seven years will enable us to cure that problem. I believe that there is an overemphasis by the Board of Trade on certain industries in certain areas of Scotland. Unless that overemphasis is materially altered within the next seven years we shall undoubtedly run into heavy trouble.
I believe that we shall have overemphasis in the next seven years on certain industries which we think we are attracting into Scotland from England. I think that that is a very unsafe and dangerous way of building up our future security in Scotland. I hope that the Secretary of State will think of a period much longer than seven years It is all very well to say, thinking in terms of only seven years, that if we attract the car industry to Scotland we shall be all right for the future. I know of no industry which can be more badly

affected in a space of seven years than that industry. It is an industry that needs a high volume of home consumption, and immediately. If, within the seven years, the balance of home production is destroyed by too many people being unemployed, the car industry will be in a difficulty.
If the Board of Trade wants to attract industry to Scotland, and more particularly, the car industry, it will have to think in far greater terms than a mere piffling seven years. I believe that this period of seven years as written into Part I of the Bill will undoubtedly create uncertainty, and possibly stop the very thing that is wanted by the President of the Board of Trade. If we are to be tied to seven years, shall we get industries to uproot themselves if they really want to take part in the social betterment of the country, and are they going to branch out from London into Wales and Scotland when they know that the first-aid help which is now to go into the distressed areas will be swept away because the provisions of the Bill will have come to an end at the end of seven years?
If hon. Members opposite think that this is merely a smiling matter, then they are not in favour of it at all. It is merely a propaganda gag going out to the country because of something which the Prime Minister said when he visited Scotland during the election campaign. I believe that there are many areas in Scotland to which, quite honestly, I think that the Government will not be able, under the present inducements in the Bill, to attract industry. I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he finds during the course of the seven years that in certain areas of Scotland—and the Secretary of State knows the position very well—he is not attracting industries there will be further depopulation from the Highland counties. Industries will not go there. In places where heavy industries are dying out and to which new industries are not attracted what action will he take? Will he stick to the present provisions of the Bill? Will he wait for seven years?
If the Government are serious in their intentions in the Bill we know that they will take remedial action long before seven years. If it is true that they will take action before then because of the


Bill's failure when it becomes an Act why must they have this provision about seven years, when they can come to the House and take effective action to deal with this problem even before the seven years expire? I do not think that the House of Commons will be willing to wait for another seven years, before doing something about the present Clauses in the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to be more forthcoming than he has been in the pronouncement which he has already given to the Committee. I think that he needs to give himself a shake and, at the same time, shake subsection (6) out of the Bill, so as to leave himself elbow room to deal with the difficulties which may arise within the period of seven years.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Rodgers: A great many hon. Members have spoken about this period of seven years and I think that it will be salutory for all of us if I read the exact words of subsection (6). They are:
The powers conferred by this Part of this Act shall not be exercisable after the expiration of seven years from the commencement thereof unless Parliament otherwise determines.
There is no suggestion that we think that either we shall completely solve the problem in seven years or that these powers will automatically lapse.
The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) said that it was odd to introduce power to terminate an Act even before we had passed it. I think that it was the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who is not at present in his place, who challenged me to produce any comparable Bill which had such powers in it. There are many such Measures—the Cinematograph Films Bill, Bills dealing with the borrowing powers of nationalised industries, and perhaps the most closely comparable of all, the Army Act, 1955, which lasts for five years unless Parliament otherwise determines and which has to be renewed from time to time. I think that a complete red herring has been drawn by hon. Members opposite in attempting to make constituency speeches.

Mr. Manuel: I object.

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) objects.
I hope that his constituents will pay careful attention to his remarks that he is not very enthusiastic about the possibility of attracting the motor car industry to Scotland.

Mr. Manuel: I certainly did not say that. I said that we had to be careful when attracting it in that we kept up the level of home consumption to use the products coming from the motor car industry. Of course, I welcome the car industry to Scotland.

Mr. Rodgers: Briefly, I think that we have debated this Amendment at great length and I hope that the Committee will now come to a decision. I must recommend the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Jay: In view of that rather curious intervention and the Parliamentary Secretary's attacks on my hon. Friends, I really must ask him to clear up the position of the management corporations if the Bill is to expire in seven years. It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying that it may not expire. He asks us to pass the Bill in this form, and we are entitled to ask what the position will be if it goes through in the form he recommends. We are guardians of the public purse, and the management corporations will own public property certainly worth £50 million, perhaps worth nearly £100 million, by the end of that period. We ought to know what the conditions will be.
Subsection (6) provides that
The powers conferred by this Part of this Act shall not be exercisable after the expiration of seven years …
The management corporations are set up and given their powers under this Part of the Bill. Clause 8, which is one of the provisions in this Part of the Bill, says that there shall be three management corporations. Clause 9, again in Part I, says:
It shall be the duty of the Management Corporations to manage land leased to them by the Board …
Apparently, they will no longer be able to manage it.
Later, in Clause 9, it is provided that
Without prejudice to the foregoing provision … the Board may give general directions to a Management Corporation
Apparently, the corporation will still be there, but it will not be able to manage


land and the Board of Trade will not be able to give it any directions. The expenses of the corporations may be defrayed by the Board of Trade. That, also, is in Part I. It is provided in Clause 10 that
A Management Corporation shall keep proper accounts.
Apparently, it will not be able to keep proper accounts when Part I has ceased to operate.
The Parliamentary Secretary is asking us to pass a Bill which sets up corporations which will own at least £50 million worth of public property, and he tells us that at the end of seven years, if the Bill goes through like this, the corporations will somehow continue to exist but will not be able to carry out any of their functions. He ought really to give us a better account of the matter than that.

Mr. John McKay: The Bill and this Clause in particular are of great importance to the country. They will affect the position of nearly half a million people. At least, the Bill is designed to improve the position of about half a million people. To begin with, one assumes that when the Government decided that Clause 1 should last for seven years they regarded Clause 1 as an important part of the Bill. Although it has deficiencies in it, perhaps, the Government thought it worth while at the beginning of the Bill to provide that the Clause should last for at least seven years.
As I understand it, from the discussion we have had on the Amendment, the Government's attitude is that, after seven years, if Parliament does nothing about the Bill itself, this Clause and Part I will come to an end, but that the rest of the Bill will continue in operation. Clause 1 lays down one of the fundamental principles of the Bill. It defines what a local area shall be and it gives the percentage which will be regarded as the regulating figure in considering whether something should be done to eradicate a certain level of unemployment.
Clause 7 provides that
Where it appears to the Minister in charge of any Government department that adequate provision has not been made for the needs of any such locality as is mentioned in subsection (2) of section one of this Act in respect of a basic service for which that department is

responsible, and that it is expedient for the purposes of this Part of this Act that the service should be improved, he may with the consent of the Treasury make grants or loans towards the cost of improving it.
The Minister can do that, as I understand it, only so long as Clause 1 operates. If it is not to operate at the end of seven years, the powers of the Minister to enforce the remaining provisions in the Bill cannot be exercised. If that be the correct interpretation of Clauses 1 and 7, we shall, in effect, be doing away with the powers of the Minister where the Board of Trade has not recently exercised its functions in any locality to reduce unemployment recognised as being high. We are thereby also weakening the powers of Ministers under Clause 7.
The problem we are discussing is one of very great general social importance, although it may vary in intensity as time passes. If all the people who seem to know about these things are anything like right, unemployment is likely to become more troublesome as time goes on, and things will become worse. On the other hand, to introduce a provision like this into the Bill is to assume that it will have had such an effect that, at the end of seven years, the problem of unemployment will have disappeared. That must be the assumption.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I hope that it is right.

Mr. McKay: I hope that it is right.
The other point made by the Minister was that, by putting subsection (6) into the Bill, we make it easier for Parliament to introduce new powers to deal with unemployment. In my view, we shall not thereby give any greater facilities at all to Parliament to adopt new powers or to amend the law in this respect. It is universally recognised that Parliament can bring in another Bill within the seven years if it finds that this one is not working satisfactorily and can introduce new provisions more beneficial to the country
7.0 p.m.
Would there be any harm in obliterating subsection (6)? Will it affect the question whether the Bill will be successful in operation? I cannot see any harm in deleting subsection (6). The deletion of it would not prevent Parliament from making a change, if it were necessary. If the subsection is taken out it will not


make any difference to whether the Bill will be fruitful or whether there will be little unemployment after seven years. I believe that the Government are being very optimistic with regard to the period of seven years. They seem to be accepting a situation which is not likely to arise. The deletion of the subsection will neither help nor hinder the Government in introducing legislation to improve the employment situation.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I do not propose to keep the Committee long, and I apologise for intervening having heard so little of the debate. However, I heard the speech of the Minister and the speeches of one or two of my hon. Friends. I find the Government's attitude completely incomprehensible. I do not know why they resist the Amendment. Nothing that the Minister said gave any rational ground for resisting it.
I think it a pity that, in a Bill of this kind and on a matter which arouses so much controversy, however unnecessary, the President of the Board of Trade is not here to deal with the Amendment. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not feel it offensive or disrespectful if I say that, quite clearly, he does not understand the argument directed to him.

Mr. Ellis Smith: He should do by now.

Mr. Silverman: No doubt he should do by now, but he should have done so before the discussion started. If he did not understand it then, I suppose that it is understandable that he does not understand it now. The hon. Gentleman must try to face up to the argument a little more squarely than he has done so far.

Mr. J. Rodgers: If the hon. Member had been here for the whole of the discussion, he would know that I have made at least four or five speeches on this matter. I do not think it fair of the hon. Gentleman to judge what I have said by my last speech.

Mr. Silverman: All I can say is that if, after four or five speeches, the hon. Member was still so incomprehensible to the Committee that he had to make the speech that I heard, it does not seem that I have missed very much by missing the other four or five speeches.
The argument has not been answered. In 1951, my constituency was made a Development Area. Until 1959, the Board of Trade did not know that anything serious was happening in the constituency at all. We gained nothing whatsoever for eight years. It takes the Board of Trade, on past experience, more than seven years to know what is going on. Why it should regard seven years as the maximum period for exercising powers which it always exercises at least seven years too late is something which the Committee finds difficult to understand.
On looking at the subsection, I find it absolutely impossible to understand why the Government insist so obstinately on retaining it. The subsection reads:
The powers conferred by this Part of this Act shall not be exercisable after the expiration of seven years from the commencement thereof unless Parliament otherwise determines.
The Minister attached very great importance to the last four words, but he must know that the words "unless Parliament otherwise determines" add absolutely nothing whatsoever to the subsection. They are utterly and completely meaningless. No Parliament is able to bind its successor. Everything that we do in Parliament lasts only until the time when Parliament otherwise determines. If the words are left out the subsection means exactly the same as if they are left in.
Why do the Government obstinately insist on retaining the subsection? The answer is that they are not serious in any of their policy dealings with the matter. They put a colourable gloss on things. They want to be able to pretend that they are doing things, that they care and that something is happening; that is all. Suppose that the subsection stands as it is. To get the benefit, such as it is, of any of the Government's powers under Clause 1 an area has to submit itself to a number of quite stringent tests. Unless it satisfies every one of them the President of the Board of Trade is not able to exercise any of the powers in its favour.
Suppose that at the end of seven years, whether by reason of a change of Government, change of policy or the manifestation of Providence, an area is not able to satisfy any of the tests under Clause 1. It will do the Government no harm if the Bill, when it becomes an


Act, remains in force. On that hypothesis it will not cost them a single farthing, because, although the powers will remain with the President of the Board of Trade, there would be no one entitled to have them exercised. If the most optimistic dreams of any member of the Government or hon. Member were fulfilled, if there were 100 per cent. employment everywhere seven years from now, it would do the Government no harm whatever if the Board of Trade retained the powers against the day when there might be a further deterioration. It would not cost the Government anything.
On the other hand, suppose that at the end of seven years there are still patches of unemployment, that there is still a drift of population from some areas and industries dying or migrating, or that there is a change in our own affairs or world affairs which makes it necessary that such powers as the Government have could still be exercised in favour of some areas. If the Clause remains as it stands the Government will have no power to do a darned thing about it unless, in the meantime, Parliament has stepped in and has otherwise determined. But why wait? Why deprive oneself of powers which cost nothing so as to leave one without powers at a time when somebody might be entitled to call upon one to exercise them if they were available?
I know that the phrase "unless Parliament otherwise determines" has been used in other Acts, but the other Acts provide a quick, easy method that will enable Parliament otherwise to determine. There is nothing like that here. "Unless Parliament otherwise determines" in the Clause means "unless Parliament passes another Act of Par-

liament." Parliament can always do that.

The question that the Government have to answer is why they wish dogmatically, as a matter, apparently, of doctrine which has not been explained to us, to deprive themselves absolutely of these powers seven years from now when to retain them costs nothing and might give them powers with which, if they were to lose them now, any decent Government would have to come to Parliament to re-equip themselves.

Why is the time of the Committee being taken up in this way? The Minister will say that it is because we are making so many and such long speeches. What else can we do if we find a Government so obstinate or so stubborn that they either do not appreciate the force of the argument that is addressed to them or do appreciate the force of it but, nevertheless, are unwilling to meet it, relying on their big battalions in the Division Lobby when the time comes to divide the Committee?

This is wholly irresponsible. The Government are not serious about the Bill. They never have been serious about it. Unless we can get a much better answer than we have had, I hope that my hon. Friends will continue the discussion until we do get a better answer. If that turns out to be finally impossible, I hope that we will vote against the Government and I hope there will be enough common sense and decency on the other side of the Committee to enable us to beat the Government when they so obstinately and stubbornly resist the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 253, Noes 199.

Division No. 30.]
AYES
[17.14 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bingham, R. M.
Chataway, Christopher


Aitken, W. T.
Bishop, F. P.
Chichester-Clark, R.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Black, Sir Cyril
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Allason, James
Bossom, Clive
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Bourne-Arton, A.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Cleaver, Leonard


Atkins, Humphrey
Boyle, Sir Edward
Collard, Richard


Barber, Anthony
Braine, Bernard
Cooke, Robert


Barlow, Sir John
Brewis, John
Cooper, A. E.


Batsford, Brian
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. W. H
Cooper-Key, Sir Edmund


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Bryan, Paul
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Bullard, Denys
Cordle, John


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Burden, F. A.
Corfield, F. V.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Costain, A. P.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Coulson, J. M.


Berkeley, Humphry
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Channon, H. P. G.
Crowder, F. P.




Cunningham, Knox
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian


Curran, Charles
Iremonger, T. L.
Peyton, John


Currie, G. B. H.
Ivine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jackson, John
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Deedes, W. F.
James, David
Pott, Percivall


de Ferranti, Basil
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Powell, J. Enoch


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jennings, J. C.
Prior, J. M. L.


Doughty, Charles
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ramsden, James


Duncan, Sir James
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rawlinson, Peter


Duthie, Sir William
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rees, Hugh


Eden, John
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Elliott, R. W.
Kirk, Peter
Renton, David


Emery, Peter
Kitson, Timothy
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Errington, Sir Eric
Lagden, Godfrey
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Erroll, F. J.
Leather, E. H. C.
Robertson, Sir David


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leavey, J. A.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Farr, John
Leburn, Gilmour
Robson Brown, Sir William


Fell, Anthony
Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Finlay, Graeme
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Roots, William


Forrest, George
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Freeth, Denzil
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Seymour, Leslie


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Loveys, Walter H.
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Gammans, Lady
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gardner, Edward
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smithers, Peter


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Gibson-Watt, David
MacArthur, Ian
Speir, Rupert


Glover, Sir Douglas
McLaren, Martin
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Godber, J. B.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stodart, J. A.


Goodhart, Philip
Maclean,Sir Fitzroy(Bute &amp; N.Ayrs.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Goodhew, Victor
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gower, Raymond
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Talbot, John E.


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
McMaster, Stanley
Tapsell, Peter


Green, Alan
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Teeling, William


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Grimston, Sir Robert
Maginnis, John E.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maitland, Cdr. J. W.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gurden, Harold
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
[...], Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marlowe, Anthony
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marshall, Douglas
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Turner, Colin


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hay, John
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Mills, Stratton
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Montgomery, Fergus
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hiley, Joseph
Morrison, John
Wall, Patrick


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Nabarro, Gerald
Watts, James


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Neave, Airey
Webster, David


Hobson, John
Nicholls, Harmar
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hocking, Philip N.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Holland, Philip
Noble, Michael
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hollingworth, John
Nugent, Sir Richard
Wise, Alfred


Hopkins, Alan
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Page, Graham
Woodnutt, Mark


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Woollam, John


Hughes-Young, Michael
Partridge, E.
Worsley, Marcus


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)



Hurd, Sir Anthony
Peel, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Sharples.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Darling, George


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Beaney, Alan
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Deer, George


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Callaghan, James
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Benson, Sir George
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Delargy, Hugh


Blyton, William
Chetwynd, George
Dempsey, James


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Cliffe, Michael
Diamond, John


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Collick, Percy
Dodds, Norman


Bowles, Frank
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Donnelly, Desmond


Boyden, James
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter







Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Marcus
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Logan, David
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, William


Finch, Harold
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Fitch, Alan
McCann, John
Short, Edward


Fletcher, Eric
MacColl, James
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Forman, J. C.
McInnes, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mackie, John
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McLeavy, Frank
Small, William


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Snow, Julian


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Grey, Charles
Manuel, A. C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mapp, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Steele, Thomas


Grimond, J.
Marsh, Richard
Stonehouse, John


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mason, Roy
Stones, William


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mayhew, Christopher
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mellish, R. J.
Stross,Dr.Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mendelson, J. J.
Sylvester, George


Hayman, F. H.
Millan, Bruce
Symonds, J. B.


Healey, Denis
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Monslow, Walter
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Morris, John
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hilton, A. V.
Mort, D. L.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Holman, Percy
Moyle, Arthur
Thorpe, Jeremy


Holt, Arthur
Neal, Harold
Timmons, John


Houghton, Douglas
Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derhy,S.)
Tomney, Frank


Howell, Charles A.
Oliver, G. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hoy, James H.
Oswald, Thomas
Wade, Donald


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Padley, W. E.
Wainwright, Edwin


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Warbey, William


Hunter, A. E.
Pargiter, G. A.
Watkins, Tudor


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Weitzman, David


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paton, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wheeldon, W. E.


Janner, Barnett
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Peart, Frederick
Whitlock, William


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pentland, Norman
Wilkins, W. A.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Popplewell, Ernest
Willey, Frederick


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, R. E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Rev. Ll. (Abertillery)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Kelley, Richard
Randall, Harry
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rankin, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


King, Dr. Horace
Redhead, E. C.
Woof, Robert


Lawson, George
Rhodes, H.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Cronin and Mr. Probert.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. James Callaghan: One of the disadvantages from the point of view of the Government Chief Whip in recommitting a Bill is that the Chair has to put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". As that Question is put I rise to debate it, and as, I think, the Chief Whip is saying, "Why not?" I would add that that is normally the purpose of putting the Question and it is for that reason that I should like to address some observations to the President of the Board of Trade about a matter which arose during the Christmas Recess relating directly to the powers to be exercised under Clause 1 in my constituency in Cardiff.
We should like to know, both in relation to the time, the period over which the Bill is due to extend and the nature of the unemployment—its imminence or otherwise—what is to be the policy of the President of the Board of Trade in relation to Cardiff. Both these matters have been discussed today and I wish to relate them to a particular case. What we fear in Cardiff, and indeed what is alleged there, is that the Board of Trade has a particular view about the future of the city which it intends to enforce upon us and that it will not allow us to use the powers which the right hon. Gentleman is obtaining in the Bill for the purposes for which they were designed.
I will be more specific, and I quote this merely as an illustration of the way in which the purposes of the Clause and


the Amendments which have been moved and accepted can be frustrated. Between 1945 and 1950–55, or thereabouts, a great many new factories were established in that area, but certainly since 1955 there has been a withdrawal and a contraction of industry in the Cardiff area. If has taken many forms and I can give a number of illustrations of it. As the Minister of State, Board of Trade, knows, we had a very good Royal Ordnance Factory which was dispersed and one of the best skilled teams of engineers in the country disappeared. The B.S.A. tools factory returned to Birmingham. All these things have happened within the last three or four years. We have also had the closing down of a furniture factory, and there have been closures in the foundry industry.
In the past few years, there has not been development in Cardiff industrially but a contraction and a withdrawal to the Midlands. What is feared in Cardiff, and what has been put specifically by
the chairman of the Cardiff Development Committee, Councillor Turnbull, is that the Board of Trade believes that Cardiff should develop as a commercial and administrative centre. It is the capital of Wales, and I am delighted that it should be, but we are not ready to see the city develop on a lop-sided basis, and we have not had any help from the right hon. Gentleman's officials over the last few years in bringing or, indeed, in retaining industry in the Cardiff area.
The purposes of the Clause and of the Amendments will be frustrated if this policy is followed. I go further and say that there has been a bias on the part of officials of the Board of Trade during the last few years against bringing industry to Cardiff. This is a very serious matter and is something about which the city and the surrounding area are beginning to feel very strongly. I am very glad indeed that West Wales has, over the last few weeks, secured a motor
car factory. The level of unemployment there justifies it, but in Cardiff itself and in the area surrounding it we feel that there is a heavy unemployment problem which is being neglected.
The town clerk of Cardiff has given me figures to show that within a 20-miles radius of the city 9,300 men and women are out of work today. This is serious,

and Cardiff is the catchment area and gathering ground for the surrounding valley. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) has told me that 9,000 men and women travel to Cardiff from the Caerphilly and the Rhymney valleys every day to work. We want the President of the Board of Trade to consider the needs of this area which we believe has been overshadowed by what may have been regarded as the greater needs of West Wales.
We want the right hon. Gentleman to consider this area within a radius of 20 miles of Cardiff and we believe it vital for our future welfare that he should do so. We can offer the facilities. A large number of these 9,000 men and women are skilled. We have coal and steel on the spot and port facilities which every-body knows are half-used, and we have an extraordinarily good technical training college at Llandaff. The Cardiff College of Advanced Technology is one of only eight in the country and it has been short of students for some
courses—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): Order. The hon. Member is going very far from the Clause.

Mr. Callaghan: You will see, Mr. Blackburn, that the Clause provides that the power shall be used
… for the purpose of providing, in any such locality … employment appropriate to the needs of the locality.
The complaint I make about the Board of Trade is the specific one that it regards employment appropriate to the needs of the locality in this case as administrative and clerical employment and not industrial employment, and I want politely to put to the President of the Board of Trade that we are not getting any clear answers to our private representations.
The Department says that it will keep our representations in mind and so on, and I had a letter using that very phrase only yesterday, but we want the right hon. Gentleman to come off the fence and we want his intentions made clear. I want to have it made clear that over 9,000 people who are out of work in the area are considered in the matter of bringing industrial works into the locality. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is a great deal of anxiety


about this. The editor of the South Wales Echo published an editorial only last week in which he said—I paraphrase his words—that we do not want Cardiff to become another Canberra.
I say this because there is this feeling, so far as the Board of Trade is concerned, that provided that it is the capital of Wales and the administrative centre and has some Government Departments, that is all that matters. The British Transport Commission is on the point of closing two more docks—the East and West Roath Docks; and this is in addition to all the other buffets and misfortunes that we have had over the last few years.
7.30 p.m.
I will not carry on with my speech, because I do not want to delay the Committee, but I think it is right that we should use the rules of order in so far as we are able to represent to the Minister the very deep anxiety that is felt. I should like him to do three things. First, to talk to his local officers to find out whether our feeling in Cardiff—not mine alone—is right that there is a bias against Cardiff and against industry coming to Cardiff; secondly, to give an assurance that the whole area will be considered for new industrial development; and, thirdly, that he should receive a deputation from the Cardiff Development Committee, not only so that its members may put their views to him, but, more satisfactorily, hear from him what his views are, and whether this feeling that has grown up about the attitude of his officials in South Wales is right or not. I would ask him if he would give that assurance, which would set our fears at rest, and if he will use his best endeavours to ensure that new industry comes to this area of 10 or 15 miles around Cardiff.

Mr. Maudling: I say straight away that if the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) would care to come to see me and bring with him some of his local supporters or local representatives, I would be very glad to see them. By local supporters, I do not mean party political supporters, but supporters of the interests of Cardiff.
Having said that, may I next say that I must refute at once the allegation of bias on the part of Board of Trade

officials. I think that that sort of accusation should not be made on the Floor of this Committee, because the implication is that civil servants who are devotedly trying to carry out Government policy are not acting properly. I do not think that is what the hon. Gentleman meant, and I am sure that, on reflection, he will think that it was a rather hard word to use.
There is no question of bias against Cardiff in any way. We must apply the same principles in one city, one locality or one district as we apply in all the others. In answering the hon. Member, I must, first, apply myself to the use which we shall make of these powers, and what the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about is the question whether Cardiff will be on the list. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I cannot at the moment say that; but in deciding whether or not to include Cardiff on the list, we shall have to take into account what the Bill tells us to do; that is, to consider the possibility of unemployment, and whether it is imminent and likely to persist.
The question whether Cardiff is a capital
or an administrative centre does not arise. This is a question of the amount of unemployment, whether it will happen in a certain time and whether it is likely to persist. A distinction could certainly be drawn at present between the level of unemployment in Cardiff itself and that in some of the surrounding areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I must make it clear that we must look at the district on the basis on which we have been discussing the Bill—that we have a large area or a small area, and that Cardiff may be in a different position from that of some of the surrounding districts.

Mr. Callaghan: May I say, on the question of bias, that I am not saying that they are biased in the sense that they are not doing their jobs properly? I mean that they seem to have reached a conclusion about what Cardiff's future should be, and, having reached that conclusion, have become biased in their feelings in favour of other areas, as against Cardiff, for industry. On the question of the percentage of unemployment, there is 3·5 per cent. of unemployment in the city itself, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not overlook the point


about the very large number of people who come into Cardiff from the district outside.

The Temporary Chairman: I should be much happier if the Minister would deal with development generally and not with the specific case of Cardiff alone.

Mr. Maudling: I can assure the hon. Member that this is a matter in which we must not particularise. We must deal with all areas on exactly the same principles, and not only on the nature of the place, but the nature of unemployment, probable or persistent.

Dame Irene Ward: I want to ask whether, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) having made a full speech on behalf of Cardiff without interruption, I might now talk in general about England and about the North East Coast in particular.

The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Lady relates her remarks to the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill", she will be in order. I heard the hon. Member for Cardiff, South East (Mr. Callaghan) interrupted by the previous occupant of the Chair, and I also heard the hon. Member say that he quoted what was happening to show how the provisions of this Bill can ge frustrated. Possibly, if the hon. Lady can relate her speech to the same point, it might be in order.

Dame Irene Ward: You set me a very difficult task, Mr. Blackburn. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all."] I do not want to get into controversy, because I know that sometimes I do stray beyond the rules of order; but after the way in which the hon. Member opposite presented his case, which was what I was trying to argue on a narrower Amendment, I thought that perhaps I was entitled to take full advantage of the opportunity. If I do not argue about a particular place, if I argue about the North East Coast, which is a general argument, perhaps I might be in order.
Perhaps it might also be in order to say to my right hon. Friend that one of the problems connected with this Bill is to know how in fact we can make the machine operate fairly. I think that would be in order, and I want to say to everybody present in the Committee that Wales has a very great advantage in

having a Secretary of State for Wales— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to argue over and above the general case put by hon. Members in this House. I am not arguing about that. I think that both Wales and Scotland are very lucky to have got the motor-car industry, which comes within the purview of this Bill, and are to have factories established in Scotland and in Wales. We are not niggardly or mean on the North East Coast. We cannot all have the same industries or advantages, but I have found that one very great difficulty with regard to this Clause is that Scotland has a Secretary of State—

Mr. Ross: You can have him.

Dame Irene Ward: Under this Bill—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady could relate her remarks much more closely to the Clause than by dealing with the Secretary of State for Scotland or with some Minister for Wales.

Dame Irene Ward: I quite agree, Mr. Blackburn, but the hon. Gentleman opposite has made his case on Cardiff. That is Wales. I am not making my case on Newcastle. I am making a general case that if the powers of the Bill are to be operated fairly, and this is what we all desire, it is absolutely essential that somebody should speak for England. I do not see why, if the hon. Gentleman opposite can speak for Cardiff—and whether it is in Wales or not, I neither know nor care—I should not be allowed to speak for England. I want to know from the President of the Board of Trade how, when we try to operate the policy which has been laid down in this Clause, we are to give a proper balance when the right hon. Gentleman is operating Clause 1, and, in addition to that, we have a Secretary of State for Scotland and a Secretary of State for Wales.
That is all I am saying. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have not got one."] That is what he calls himself; whether he is or is not, I really do not know. On the North East Coast we are already faced with a decline in the employment to be found in the mining industry. Therefore, it looks as if the North East Coast will be covered by
Clause 1. We also have the great anxiety of a decline in shipbuilding and in shipping, so it is of great importance to us that we should


know who will protect our interests when we are arguing generally for employment to come to our part of the world.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East conveyed an invitation to my right hon. Friend to go to Cardiff. I have conveyed an invitation to him to come to the North East Coast. My right hon. Friend got up—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Blackburn): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not have conveyed that invitation under this Question, and to repeat the crime does not make it in order.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Blackburn. I did not give the President of the Board of Trade an invitation to come to Cardiff, but I now do so, and I hope that he will accept.

Dame Irene Ward: That, Mr. Blackburn, is a discrimination against the North East Coast, because the hon. Gentleman asked if he could take a deputation to the Minister and they then discussed the personalities. Since my right hon. Friend replied, I think it would be a gross discrimination against the North East Coast in particular, and against England generally, if I were not allowed to make my request to him. I kept on asking him, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that he had already written to tell me that my right hon. Friend would come to the North East Coast. We shall be delighted to receive him and I will not say anything about how he should try to apply the powers under Clause 1—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. There is nothing in Clause 1 about the President of the Board of Trade visiting the North East Coast. I certainly do not want to discriminate, or to appear to be discriminating against the North East Coast, but I hope that the debate on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill", will not be dealt with by a succession of speeches on the problems of particular areas. If hon. Members will look at the purpose of the Clause they will see that such a debate would be out of order.

Dame Irene Ward: I have sat here and listened, Mr. Blackburn, and I will

not have England discriminated against. If I cannot invite anybody to come to the North East Coast I will only say that we can try to get Clause 1 put into operation by a series of letters and by Questions in the House. However, I want to make the point that the money which is embodied in Clause 1—because money is implicit in the Clause—must be found by the Treasury.
May I also return to the fact that there is a period of seven years embodied in Clause 1, which I think I am in order in mentioning. It might well be that by putting seven years into the Clause my right hon. Friend wants to stimulate industrialists to get on quickly with the erection of factories. If we had not left seven years in the Bill, industrialists might have thought they had all the time in the world. Well, they have not got all the time in the world, because by putting Clause 1 into operation we shall be in a position to deal with unemployment that will develop in the mining industry, perhaps all over the British Isles. This, of course, does not take into account any discrimination. Since we cannot always rely on the operation of Clause 1—

7.45 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I must appeal to the hon. Lady to finish her speech, because financial matters are dealt with in Clause 7 and there is nothing in Clause 1 which deals with finance.

Dame Irene Ward: Then, Mr. Blackburn, we have an extraordinary Clause. If unemployment develops in certain parts of the country we can discuss it, and can perhaps bring ourselves within the orbit of the Clause, but the Treasury has no interest in it at all. I will wait until we reach the appropriate Clause and then perhaps I shall be able to argue for England and for my part of the world. However, I want to know from the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to deal, under Clause 1, with the difficult situation of the closing down of coalfields which, for one reason or another, are beginning to be worked out, and how he will deal with the unemployment developing on the North-East Coast and how he intends to deal generally with the decline in shipbuilding and shipping.


May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will be meeting all the appropriate employers in the shipbuilding industry, the ship repair yards and the shipping industry, and whether he has already had his attention directed to the speech made by the President of the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders —I hardly dare say of the North-East Coast Institute, although it was so—asking whether we could have an acceleration of naval shipbuilding, and whether that will come under Clause 1?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. Lady to resume her seat. If she would look at Clause 1 she would see that it refers to the powers conferred by the following Clauses of the Bill and the purposes for which Part I powers are exercisable.

Dame Irene Ward: Thank you very much, Mr. Blackburn. One of the subsections of Clause 1 deals with the administration of Cardiff and the administration of business in Cardiff. The hon. Gentleman made great play with that and I want to know whether that comes under the Question?

The Temporary Chairman: I have no objection to an hon. Member using an area merely as an example for some point which is being made, but it is not in order on this Question to argue in detail about any one area.

Dame Irene Ward: I do not want to try you too far, Mr. Blackburn, because I know how difficult it is. I will now resume my seat, but it is extremely difficult in a debate when Front Bench speakers are allowed to make their speeches and I am not, and I think it is a discrimination against the North East Coast.

Mr. Peart: In passing, Mr. Blackburn, I want to correct the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) because in no way does she speak for England.

Dame Irene Ward: Oh, yes I do.

Mr. Peart: Oh, no she does not. The views she expressed in no way represent my views on this Clause, which I hope will be approved by my constituency—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. That does not arise on this Question, either.

Mr. Peart: I am concerned with the purposes of this Clause. I do not believe that the hon. Lady is concerned with them, because she said she was indifferent to the needs of Cardiff. I am not. I hope the purposes of the Clause will be such that they will apply fairly to every area in England, Scotland and Wales, and it is disgraceful for any English Member to say anything to the contrary. It is all very well trying to obtain cheap publicity for one's own area, such as the North East Coast—

Dame Irene Ward: What is the hon. Gentleman doing?

Mr. Peart: Of course I defend the interests of west Cumberland, but I would like to think that this Clause will be applied fairly to all those parts of the country affected by unemployment. I do not wish to prolong the discussion. I hope that the Clause will be administered and applied fairly and that no priority will be given to any area, be it Cardiff, north-east England or my own area. The Minister in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that there would be no bias. Although we in west Cumberland have a very real problem, we appreciate that unemployment affects other areas as well. An example of that is the unemployment caused by the contraction of the coal industry.
I hope that the Minister will resist "backwoodsman" talk from an hon. Member behind him who does not know the Ministers of the Government and that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is the Minister for Welsh Affairs and not the Secretary of State. We in our area do not wish to have a special Minister to look after us. We desire no special Minister to come to our area. As I said during the discussion on the previous Amendment, we asked to go and see the Minister in London. That is the advice that I would give to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I was about to say that my hon. Friend would be very grateful for that advice.

Mr. Peart: I do not know whether the hon. Lady will accept it.
The Minister has said that he will administer the Clause fairly. I am certain that he will. I am sorry that we


were not successful on the previous Amendment over the seven years' issue because I have always felt that if we were to review the purposes under that Clause we could do it through the procedure of a Select Committee. That is by the way, and I hope that the Minister does what I have suggested.

Mr. Maudling: I entirely agree that it is important that the power conferred by the Bill should be exercised without bias or discrimination. The active way in which the representatives of one part of the country react to representations made from other parts of the country ensures that any Minister who shows bias is reprimanded in the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(PROVISION OF PREMISES AND SITES.)

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, after "there", to insert:
(whether or not any such undertaking can be identified at the time)".
I hope that it will be appreciated that the intention of the Amendment is to provide that the Board of Trade in carrying out its functions under Clause 2 of the Bill when it becomes an Act will be enabled, if it so desires, to build advance factories. These are complicated words to use when we are discussing advance factories, but as Clause 2 stands at present it appears that the Board of Trade may only acquire land or put up buildings for undertakings that are identifiable or are already there. The Clause reads:
For the purposes of this Part 'of this' Act the Board shall have power, in order to provide or facilitate the provision of premises in any such locality as is mentioned in subsection (2) of the foregoing section for occupation by undertakings carried on or to be carried on there or for otherwise meeting the requirements of such undertakings…
That gives the impression that at present we can identify the undertakings.
In the Act of 1945 it was made abundantly clear that Her Majesty's Ministers at that time envisaged the need to build factories in advance in areas of high unemployment. Section 2 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, says:

The Board of Trade may with the consent of the Treasury make loans to trading or industrial estate companies (whether incorporated before or after the passing of this Act) where the Board are satisfied that the loans will further the provision of industrial premises in development areas in such a way as to induce persons to establish or expand industrial undertakings in such areas.
It was made abundantly clear that one of the prime purposes of the Board of Trade at that time was to enable the industrial estate companies to build advance factories. Millions of square feet of advance factories were built in the years immediately after the war. At the present time, under the existing legislation, I believe that the Board of Trade has three advance factories going up in all the Development Areas of Great Britain. For a long time no advance factories were built in any part of the country.
Some of us believe that the problems of some areas will be solved only if the Government authorise industrial estate companies, or the management corporations, as they are to be called, to go ahead and provide accommodation for industry in advance. We have plenty of experience of the advantage of having factories available in an area where unemployment has already developed or is about to develop.
On previous occasions the Parliamentary Secretary has explained why advance factories could not be built, but the Ministry has now agreed to build three advance factories in the Scottish Development Area. That area is the largest Development Area, with the largest number of people and the largest number of unemployed among all the Development Areas in the country.
In that Development Area, particularly in the part where there is a large number of people totally unemployed—and I am referring to the area around Hillington and a good part of North Lanarkshire close to Glasgow—a factory does not stand empty waiting for a tenant. On a number of occasions I have listened to the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary listing the number of empty factories in Development Areas. The whole of my constituency is in the Scottish Development Area. I know of one or two buildings in the area that are empty, but I do not know of any modern


factories that have been built by the Government.
I have had correspondence with the Parliamentary Secretary about accommodation that is becoming available on the Blantyre Estate in my constituency. I thought that it would be a good thing to let that accommodation to an employer not already on the estate. I was delighted at the end of the day to learn that instead of the industrialist who was already on the estate being allowed to take over the factory, we were getting another employer—an engineering employer—from another part of the world to take over this factory. If a factory had not been available at that time we should probably have missed him and he would have gone to the Continent.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment and so provide in the Bill the power to build advance factories if the President of the Board of Trade is minded to do so. If he does not accept the Amendment and take the power to build advance factories he will be going back on the existing legislation, and it has been the boast of the Government that this Bill is an improvement on the 1945 Act.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not only accept the Amendment but that he will give us an assurance that it is the intention of his right hon. Friend to exercise his power to build advance factories in those areas where there is a lot of unemployment. We have heard a lot about the ability of the President of the Board of Trade to anticipate accumulating unemployment in an area. If the Minister does not accept the power to build factories in those areas where unemployment on a massive scale is likely to arise—because of pit closures and the like—he will not induce industrialists to go into those areas and ease the situation.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment and, in taking power for the Board of Trade to build advance factories, will give us an assurance that his right hon. Friend will exercise those powers.

8.0 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I could make exactly the same speech as that which has just been made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), with the

substitution of the North East Coast for the areas mentioned by him. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us where these factories are being built. I also want to know whether it is true that the Treasury is not very keen on finding money to enable the building of factories in advance of employers being available to occupy them. I cannot help feeling that the Treasury holds the purse-strings and calls the tune of the President of the Board of Trade. It would be advantageous if we could have the assurance for which the hon. Member for Hamilton asked, and also an assurance that in cases of areas of vast or developing unemployment those who give advice to the President of the Board of Trade in connection with the building of factories will get into their heads all the necessary information, facts, knowledge and "know-how" of the industry with which they are concerned before trying to clip the wings of the Board of Trade.
Certain industrialists are quite numerous on the North East Coast trading estates. We have a very large area, and we want both factories and factory extensions built. The hon. Member for Hamilton mentioned the 1945 Act, so I presume that I am in order in also mentioning it. Are we going to get these factories? If permission has been given for factories to be built in some areas I can see no reason why the same advantage should not be granted to the North East Coast.

Mr. Bence: I support the Amendment because it is a very important one. In 1910 a great friend of mine, who has now passed away, began manufacturing in a very small way in Cardiff with a capital of £53. I remember his telling me in 1946 that if he then had £53,000 he could not start one again. He could not enter into that manufacturing circle. That is a feature of all modern industrial economies, and we ought to do something to help competent engineers and technicians to enter in if they desire.
If Scotland is to benefit properly in this respect we must get into Scotland some units of the motor car industry. The larger units of that industry are assembled together with units which are fed in from hundreds of small factories. Any Midlander will agree that in the Midlands there are hundreds of small


factories which specialise in providing components for the motor car industry—for commercial vehicles, tractors and passenger vehicles. If factories can be provided in Scotland at reasonable rents there is terrific scope for young men with financial backing and creative ability to participate in the new industry which will be coming to Scotland. There is plenty of room for them to act as producers for the larger assembly plants.
One of the factors which dissuades light engineering firms from coming to Scotland and Wales is the lack of accommodation for small producer units. That factor was a great handicap to Wales when I was young, but anyone who went to the Midlands even then could find hundreds of thousands of firms, employing no more than 50 or 60 people, making small specialised components for use in consumer durable goods and motor cars. That situation does not apply in Scotland because we have not had suitable industries there. Tie Board of Trade now has an opportunity to build factory space suitable for industrial units.

Mr. Gower: I have personal knowledge of a point that the hon. Member was making. A friend of mine who makes the rubber which goes round the windows of motor cars started manufacturing with very slender capital after the last war. We should not exaggerate the amount of capital needed in these cases.

Mr. Bence: Yes; no doubt that was in 1945 or 1946.

Mr. Gower: My friend started much more recently than that.

Mr. Bence: From the time the war ended until 1950 hundreds of opportunities existed in the Midlands for starting up various manufacturing processes. I could write a little pamphlet concerning some of the people who marched round the Midlands trying to get tool makers and engineers to start up productive processes with them, in order to make some quick money. It was the same situation that existed during the war.
Unless within the next four years suitable industrial accommodation can be provided in Scotland, especially in some of the new Development Areas, the provisions of the Bill will not succeed. We know that

Glasgow has overspill agreements and that certain industries are moving out. It may be that vacant industrial space will then be available, but Glasgow will need that space for other purposes. Similarly, some of the older factories have become vacant, but they are not up to modern industrial standards.
If modern light engineering industries are to come to Scotland and Wales the designing and building of factories in both countries will have to incorporate the amenities and the general industrial conditions which are—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is now going a little beyond the question of where these factories can be built. I do not think that we can discuss the type of factory to which he is now referring.

Mr. Bence: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Blackburn, but I think that this is important. If an advance factory is built by the Board of Trade which has a knowledge of industrial conditions and the amenities to be provided to attract industry, it is more likely that it will be occupied than if it is built for a particular company. A factory built for a specific production or process may be desirable and useful only for that type of production. I can think of cases relating to the motor trade, where it would be necessary to build a factory specifically designed for a particular line of production. Often it would be better for a factory of a more general type to be built by the Board of Trade. That was why I made the point about design.
I agree that in some cases it is desirable for an industrialist to design and lay out his own premises. But it is also desirable that factory floor space should be available for small manufacturers employing perhaps 100 or 200 men and producing something which would be useful to the major assembling units. This is not a new idea. It was done in the Midlands long before I entered the engineering industry. The great assembly plants of the motor industry are
surrounded by small factory units. There are some in Birmingham occupying premises which consist of a couple of houses in a back street which have been made into one, where 50 or 60 men may be employed. When I was a young man such units had presses in the bedrooms.


I am not suggesting that that happens in Scotland—

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member will not develop his reminiscences, but will deal with the question of advance factories.

Mr. Bence: I am developing my argument and explaining why I am asking that advance factories be provided for these small units. I was illustrating the point by saying that in the Midlands the major industries are surrounded by such small units which have grown up over the years in these sort of higgledy-piggledy places. But it would be far better if, under the provisions of the Bill, the Board of Trade takes power to build factories for these small units. For that reason I support the Amendment. I hope that in Scotland we may have the same pattern as exists in London and the Midlands.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Rodgers: We have heard from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that the object of the Amendment is to make it explicit in the Bill that the Board of Trade shall have power to build advance factories. I am advised by
my legal advisers that already that power exists under Clause 2 as drafted. The relevant words are to erect buildings
in order to provide … premises … for … undertakings … to be carried on.
My first reason, therefore, for asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment is that the powers already exist in the Bill for the Board of Trade to build advance factories if it so desires.
There is a second reason why I think that this Amendment should be withdrawn. The hon. Member asked for an assurance that if we have the powers—I think that he suspected that we might have them—we should exercise them. Although the Board has the power to build advance factories it is not present Government policy to exercise those powers save exceptionally and experimentally. As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, there are at present three experimental factories, one on Merseyside, one in north Lanarkshire and one in North Wales, which is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who asked where the factories were.
I think it significant that up to date little interest has been evinced in these factories. It is true that they are not yet completely constructed and that may be the reason. When we said we would build these factories we hoped that there would be a positive reaction which would show whether this was what industry was looking for. Our experience to date, and I can only quote our experience up to the present, is that industrialists have shown little interest.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask whether the Board of Trade undertakes any other form of advertising to make known the existence of these factories, other than calling the attention of industrialists to them? Is any other form of advertising undertaken to make it known that these factories are available?

Mr. Rodgers: We do not make any special arrangement regarding these factories any more than for the existing factories on trading estates. But they are well known to industrialists. Regional controllers know that they are available and they have been referred to in the Board of Trade Journal. A great deal of publicity was given to the erection of these advance factories as a result of Questions and Answers in the House. But it is significant that little interest has been evinced in them and so we regard them as experimental. I should not like to mislead the Committee by giving the impression that it is the intention of the Government to go on building such factories.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) referred to the desirability of making factory space available for skilled engineers operating in a small way so that they could gain entry to a particular industry. That is covered by the powers in the Bill. We hope to build premises for people in the right areas and under the right conditions. There is no limitation on the size of premises, but our experience is that people prefer custom built factories rather than advance factories.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been three or four inquiries about the advance factory at Holyhead and that his Department in Wales is convinced that an industrialist will be interested in a factory which may be adapted to his needs?

Mr. Rodgers: I am interested to know that. My official information is that so far there has been no offer to take over the factory when it is completed. But we shall review this experiment.
I take it that the hon. Member for Hamilton will be willing to withdraw his Amendment, since we have powers in the Bill to build advance factories. Whether or not we exercise them can be determined later in the light of the result of the experiment.

Mr. S. 0. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil): Could the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will build a factory of about 75,000 sq. ft. in Merthyr Tydvil, because I know of an industrialist who would be very glad to get such a factory, and there are 1,100 unemployed there?

Mr. Rodgers: If the hon. Member knows a manufacturer anxious to have premises we are very willing to meet such a manufacturer and discuss terms on which we would build premises.

Mr. C. Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if these advance factories in North Wales, in Lanarkshire and on Merseyside are tenanted within a reasonable time, certainly if they are tenanted before they are finished, further advance factories will be built elsewhere in areas of high unemployment?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I could not give that assurance, but we shall be guided by experience.

Mr. Boyden: I was very surprised to heard the Parliamentary Secretary say what he has just said, because Dame Alix Meynell, former Under-Secretary of the Industries and Manufacturers Department of the Board of Trade, writing in the journal Public Administration, said:
to the question, which inducement is the most powerful, I answer without hesitation, the offer of factories to let, both 'tailor-made' and those which are 'off the peg'; for experience has shown that both have their attractions to industry large and small, rich and poor.
I am inclined to wonder why the Parliamentary Secretary is talking in this way.

Dame Irene Ward: As everyone else is asking questions and I am very interested in these advance factories, I wish to ask a question. If my hon. Friend is so busy

having these factories built and looking for tenants, why, when there are tenants available on the North-East Coast—if I may refer to that, as Scotland has had a good go—cannot we go ahead there? Could I have an answer to that, because it is very important?

Mr. Rodgers: If the hon. Lady will write to me on those specific points I will look into them.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Parliamentary Secretary said that there is provision for the building of advance factories. He advised us that the words in the Clause give that power. The words are:
for occupation by undertakings carried on or to be carried on there …
If the Amendment is not proceeded with this evening, would the Parliamentary Secretary consider carefully, with his legal advisers, whether there is provision here for the building of advance factories? I am advised that it would be possible for someone who objected to expenditure of taxpayers' money on the building of advance factories to challenge the President of the Board of Trade if he were so to do with the powers as written in the subsection. I am advised that it would be possible for a lawyer to argue that the undertaking to be carried on must be an identifiable undertaking. If a factory were being built with no particular industrialist in prospect, the President of the Board of Trade would be having a factory built without having an undertaking" to be carried on there".
If that is so, there would not be power to build advance factories. If the Parliamentary Secretary gives me an assurance, as I think he does, that he will have a look at the question between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place, and, if there is the possibility of that kind of challenge going to the court, the Minister will adjust the Bill so that he does not find himself in the position of being challenged in the court—

Mr. Rodgers: I certainly give that assurance. If my legal advice is not right and if the interpretation of the hon. Member suggests could be placed on these words, a change will be made.

Mr. Fraser: I am, none the less, disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary was so reluctant to make any


promise about the building of advance factories in future. I have never ceased to be amazed at his insistence that the three factories being built, one in Wales, one on Merseyside, and the other in Scotland, are experimental factories and that we shall have to wait to see how the experiment works out before deciding to what extent further advance factories are to be built in future.
Advance factories have been built
by Governments since the first Special Areas Act was passed in 1934. We have had twenty-six years' experience, but now the Parliamentary Secretary says we shall have to see how the experiment works out and how we get on with the three factories under construction. He is not being very bold; he is being unduly cautious.
However, there will be other occasions in future when we can press him and his right hon. Friend to exercise the powers they are seeking in this Bill. On the understanding that the Parliamentary Secretary will secure that power is included for the building of advance factories without any ambiguity—that he will have further conversations on the legal aspect to make quite clear the intention of the Bill before it becomes an Act—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lee: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 3 to 6.
We are now approaching a new subject, the question of office accommodation. The words we are proposing to delete are:
Provided that the Board shall not acquire under this section any buildings other than industrial buildings except for redelevopment or as part of a larger property which in the opinion of the Board would be incomplete without them.
A little later we shall come to a new Clause in which we ask, on a much wider basis than in the present Amendment, that office building shall be included in the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade said on Second Reading, when speaking of Clause 2:
… we shall have power to build for non-industrial undertakings.
That is an important power, because there may be many occasions when it will be as useful to provide for employment in a commercial undertaking as it is to provide employ-

ment in an industrial undertaking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1959; Vol. 613, c. 37–38.]
8.30 p.m.
Office accommodation is not within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade, nor, I think, is commercial building as such. I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's words on Second Reading that in this Measure he is taking power in respect of commercial undertakings. We approve of his intentions in that respect, but we find it most difficult to understand why he wishes to enlarge the scope of the Board of Trade's power in that direction without at the same time taking power in respect of office accommodation.
While we are dealing with the more limited point of the provision of premises and sites, it is important that we should ask the right hon. Gentleman to be consistent with his arguments and aspirations and to give himself powers—which, if he does not at the moment possess in the Bill, we shall certainly seek to give him in the new Clause—to acquire not only commercial buildings but also office buildings.
One can well appreciate that unless the right hon. Gentleman takes powers which are outside the scope of what are now construed to be industrial buildings he will land himself in a lopsided position. It is almost inevitable that, if he takes such powers as are in the Clause, he will need to be able to acquire office premises as well as industrial premises if he is to have a viable undertaking. It would be a ridiculous situation if, office premises being available, he had no power to take them and the people setting up an industry had to erect their own office premises.
The Amendment asks the right hon. Gentleman to delete from the Bill the words which I have quoted in order to give himself powers which are legitimate and sensible if he is to achieve the objects which he has in mind, and certainly the objects which he pointed out in his Second Reading speech.
The right hon. Gentleman accepts the principle that the Board of Trade should enlarge its powers. We are suggesting that to be consistent he should enlarge his powers beyond those dealing with industrial or commercial undertakings,


as at present defined, to include powers to produce a viable undertaking by acquiring office accommodation too.
It is a rather limited point within the Clause and I am not trying to argue the wider implications which will arise later. I hope that the Amendment commends itself to the right hon. Gentleman as a sensible enlargement of the powers which he is seeking in other directions.

Mr. Maudling: As the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) pointed out, there is an important question to be discussed later on the new Clause about control of offices, and I will not anticipate that. This is a different and very much narrower point. The provision in the Bill, which was included as a protection of the Revenue and the public interest, is sensible. It is only a small limitation of our powers, and it is wise that our powers should be so limited. In general, it is a good thing to limit the powers of Government Departments to what are necessary. It is sometimes a protection to the public, too, because if the Government have no power to do certain things, they cannot be pressed to do them. I will explain in a moment what I mean by that.
The purpose of the Clause is to give the Board of Trade power to acquire premises. In the proviso we say that we should not acquire non-industrial buildings, for example, commercial buildings, houses, shops and offices, save in two circumstances, either when they are part of an industrial property which we are taking over, or where we intend to redevelop.
I will give examples of those two exceptions. The first is the question of a complete property. If we are acquiring a factory building, there may be a night watchman's cottage, which is residential, and it may well be sensible to include that in the acquisition. There would be power to do so. It would also be possible to take over existing industrial or other buildings to redevelop and to create something new, including new offices.
The only thing we are prevented from doing is acquiring houses, hotels and shops and continuing to lease them for their existing use. That is a sensible limitation. I cannot imagine that, in practice, there are likely to be many

cases where a substantial amount of employment would be created by taking over a hotel or office building already in existence and leasing it to another tenant.

Mr. Lee: I follow very well what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. If there were a factory the industrial part of which was a whole and there were office blocks which had been run in conjunction with the factory, but were quite distinct from the industrial building—this could be the case in many areas—would the right hon. Gentleman have powers in respect of the office block?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, as I read the Bill, because it is a question of the opinion of the Board. If we thought that a factory was not complete without the ancillary offices, we have power to acquire the offices, also. It is important that we should have that power.

Mr. George Thomas: Would "industrial buildings" cover dock undertakings? This question is important, as the right hon. Gentleman will have learned from an earlier speech.

Mr. Maudling: Questions of interpretation are more proper for the courts than for the Minister. Speaking subject to reference, I should have thought that dock Undertakings—dockyards, cranes and the like—would be industrial undertakings and fall within this provision.

Mr. James Boyden: In that case, can the same principle apply to mining other than coal mining?

Mr. Maudling: Yes. All these things are certainly industrial undertakings. Non-industrial undertakings are shops, offices as such, hotels and such buildings.
The point I was making was that I cannot see that the acquisition and re-letting of such premises for their existing purposes are likely to create in many cases a substantial amount of new employment. On the other hand, I can see great pressure being brought to bear on the Board of Trade from time to time by the owners of hotels, shops and offices, not doing so well, for us to take over antiquated property as part of the use of our powers under the Bill. It would subject the Board of Trade at any time to pressure of a kind which is probably


better avoided. There is a difference between providing new commercial premises and merely taking over and re-letting existing premises.
What we have in mind, as the Committee has discussed on previous occasions, is the need to have some assurance of continued operation and the continued provision of employment. When we talk about providing commercial premises, the sort of thing we have in mind is to persuade a big insurance company to take over a big office block. In that case, we can have some assurance of continued operation just as one can when an industrial undertaking takes over a new factory. If one is merely taking over a commercial building already let and letting it to another tenant, the assurance of providing continued employment is very small indeed.
Therefore, we thought, on balance, that this provision, which is a limitation of our power, would not, in practice, in any way impede us in our main purpose of providing employment. On the other hand, it should be retained as a proper limitation of our powers and a proper protection for the Board of Trade, which otherwise might be subjected to pressure to acquire at public expense many premises which we should never acquire.

Mr. T. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the Committee, perhaps unwittingly. He says that he merely wants the power to acquire the properties that it is essential or desirable to have for the purpose of furthering employment. He must know full well that it is highly desirable in certain circumstances for the Board of Trade to acquire houses for key personnel. He cannot do so if he does not take power to acquire the land. The buildings mentioned in the proviso are surely on the land to be acquired under Clause 2 (a).

Mr. Maudling: There are two categories. We certainly have power to acquire, for example, a watchman's cottage or a cottage or house which is already part of the industrial property and used as such. Apart from that, the movement and housing of key workers, as the hon. Member knows, is dealt with by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as I explained during our previous debates.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, but my trouble is that I have seen this thing working. I am sorry to say it, but I have probably seen it working at much closer quarters than has the right hon. Gentleman. I am not here dealing with the industrial workers who are provided for by the local authorities. I am dealing with the managerial personnel, who have never been accommodated by any local authority in the country.
What has happened in the past is that the Board of Trade has found the accommodation. Sometimes, it has built the houses specially and at other times it has, by agreement, acquired the houses; it has not bought them compulsorily, but has acquired them. Here the President of the Board of Trade is denying himself the right to secure those houses, the possession of which by the Board of Trade to pass on to the industrialist who is to come to the area is fundamental to the success of his scheme to repopulate, or to bring new industry into some of those areas that are so badly denuded of industry at present.
The right hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) that if some office acommodation was necessary as part of the scheme for bringing in an industry he could acquire it. Could he? The wording is
… the Board shall not acquire under this section any buildings other than industrial buildings except for redevelopment"—
that is one thing:
or as part of a larger property which in the opinion of the Board would be incomplete without them.
If the industrial buildings are in one part of a town and the administrative offices are three or five miles away, are they part of the larger property? Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that his legal advisers would tell him that an office property three or five miles away is part of an industrial property elsewhere? If that is what he has in mind, I must say that he has chosen very strange language to express it.
In any case, were he to accept our Amendment and so take away this limitation on his powers he would still have the power to acquire the industrial buildings that he needs, and he would have power to acquire the houses that are essential for the industrial development that he so much wishes. He might


be under some pressure here and there to acquire hotels that are losing money, but I hope that he will not give way to such blandishments. There can be few hon. Members who would submit to the President of the Board of Trade that the only way to help in the solution of unemployment in their constituencies is for the Board of Trade to acquire some existing hotels. That is not a very likely claim; the picture is a bit far-fetched.
The position in relation to office buildings is quite different. An office block, which is not part of an industrial undertaking in the town but which is purely and simply an office block—and offices provide a lot of the jobs nowadays—might, in an area of heavy unemployment, cease to be used as offices. If there is not a purchaser, and the owners of the block are not willing to let another occupier have it on a tenancy basis but want to sell it instead—and there are many bidders for such accommodation—then we say that, in an area of heavy unemployment, the right hon. Gentleman should have the power to acquire that block if he so wishes. Having taken it over, he would perhaps find a good and useful tenant to provide much-needed employment in that area
8.45 p.m.
Why should he deny himself the right to do these things? By refusing our Amendment he is denying himself that right. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that if an office block is becoming vacant or has become vacant and is available, it is not the building of something but the acquiring of the building. There are already far too few jobs in the areas of high unemployment. If there is a further drain on office accommodation in the congested areas of high unemployment and an office block is standing empty, why should not the right hon. Gentleman have the power to acquire it and then look round for a suitable tenant?
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that it is desirable to have this power. The acquisition is not for purposes of redevelopment. The block I referred to earlier is not part of a larger property; it is an office building no longer being used for the purpose, and it happens to be unoccupied in an area of high employment.
Let us think of what I have said concerning these houses. They are not three, four or five bedroomed houses of local authorities, but seven, eight or ten roomed houses which one would find in the market in Scotland at values of £3,000, £5,000 or £7,000. These are the kind of places which are already occupied by the top people who will be coming in to run these much needed industries in those areas. The Committee should realise that if they cannot have such houses they just will not come. If they have houses like those in the London and Midland areas and they are invited to go to Wales, Merseyside, the North-East and Scotland and cannot get similar houses they will not go there.
It has been found necessary in the past for the Board of Trade to acquire suitable houses for such people, and I cannot see why the President of the Board of Trade should not continue to enjoy those powers. We do not want him to exercise powers which are not necessary in the interest of employment, but we should like him to take these powers where that is desirable and necessary in the interest of employment in the difficult areas.

Mr. Manuel: I hope that the President of the Board of Trade has been impressed by the very strong arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). I put it to him that he should not deny himself powers which he may find later would become very necessary in order to attract good industry into areas needing it.
These powers might be necessary in the case of a large hotel which was not paying and which had come on the market. The owner might be wanting to dispose of it. That hotel could be easily turned into an industrial building or offices, or, as many big firms have, a place where they put up for short periods such people as visiting technicians. I.C.I. has a huge hotel where people are accommodated in connection with the carrying on of the business in the Stevenston district. The hotel is in Ardrossan, which is a good many miles from the factory at Stevenston. If a big combine could be attracted to Scotland, and if it asked the Board of Trade for help in acquiring properties of that kind which come on the market at reasonable prices because of their size, would the right hon. Gentleman have power to acquire them?


Could he, for instance, acquire an hotel, although it had not been an industrial building hitherto, if after acquisition it were to be used exclusively for the purposes of an industry extending its activities in a particular area?

Mr. Maudling: We can, of course, acquire buildings which are to be redeveloped and change their use. I think that that may cover the point raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). Housing for management is, I agree, very important. The answer is that there are powers under Clause 4. Under the D.A.T.A.C. system, loans can be made to undertakings, and that can cover the provision of houses for key personnel and so forth. I think that that would be the better way, rather than the Board of Trade becoming the landlord of a series of managing directors, which might give trouble here and there.
As to the proximity of the offices to industrial buildings, I agree that three miles is quite a long distance. I cannot imagine that that would happen in practice. One wants to see whether the owners of the existing property are treating it all as one property used for a single purpose. In that case, we can acquire it and use it as a single property. I do not think that, in practice, those difficulties will arise very often. As I understand it, that is the best interpretation one can give.
The provision of housing for key personnel is of immense importance. Housing, through local authorities, as hon. Members know very well, is dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government who has those powers. We say that the rather more expensive type of house should be dealt with under the general loan-making powers rather than under the general acquisition powers of the Board of Trade.

Mr. T. Fraser: What about the example I gave of an office block, which is not part of a local industry, standing empty in an area of high unemployment? Let us say that it happens to be a block built and used for the purpose of offices and it has provided, perhaps, hundreds of jobs. Those jobs are sucked away to the congested areas. This has

happened very often. Why should not the Board of Trade have power to acquire such office premises?
For instance, there are towns where the Ministery of Food had offices some years ago. There are places where the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance has offices. It has offices in the North East of England and also in another part of the country. There might be a pulling back by some of the big Ministries and even Government offices could become available.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As one who had the privilege of taking part in the siting and developing of the offices of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance at Newcastle, I should like our friends in the North East to be assured that there is no intention of removing them.

Mr. Fraser: I am sure that none of us would wish to remove those offices from Newcastle, but there are, for instance, offices of the former Ministry of Pensions in other parts of the country. Those offices might be closed, taking work from there and concentrating it in the premises at Newcastle, and empty office space might be left.
I realise that the Government could sell these office blocks in certain parts of the country, for instance, to I.C.I., or to a big combine which is willing to buy offices. But, if there is no purchaser readily available, why should not the Board of Trade be enabled to acquire such office blocks and then look for a tenant? It might not necessarily be a Government Department's office which became available. A private company might find itself with office accommodation surplus to requirements, and those offices might be situated in an area of severe unemployment. If no other purchaser was readily available, why should not the Board of Trade, which is anxious to provide employment in the area, have the right to acquire the property, even by agreement, so that it might be used to induce another employer to come to the district?

Mr. Maudling: The answer is that there is really a basic difference between industrial building and the business of providing office accommodation. A factory, normally speaking, is provided for a specific person who takes the whole


of it. Office renting is a very speculative matter, and, generally speaking, a large number of tenants are in the same building. It would be a bad thing if the Board of Trade were to take over office buildings, which are not attractive by definition, because they are not being used, and hold them in the hope that tenants will be obtained for them.
Clause 4 says that loans can be given to people to develop in particular areas. It is the distinction between becoming a landlord in the highly speculative business of the provision of office accommodation and becoming a landlord to someone whom one knows will stay in a building which we have in mind.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Some businesses will find in future that there are decided advantages in decentralising some of their administrative clerical work. This has worked very successfully indeed with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. Suppose an insurance company or a company with an enormous staff says to the Board of Trade, "We should like to decentralise. Some of our work can be done 250 miles away without any injury to the general organisation and indeed with some advantage to it. Would you be able to provide us with office premises in an area which you want to develop under the Measure? If you are, we may transfer a section of our work to those premises." This Clause would prevent the President of the Board of Trade doing that.
May I speak from my own experience. Here, I am sure that my friends in the North-East will agree with me. One of the difficulties in the older areas is that a growing number of young men and women, particularly young women, with qualifications for commercial work tend to go into the big cities. It is an enormous advantage to have work of this kind available in an area like Newcastle-upon-Tyne or Cardiff.
It is important that the President of the Board of Trade should realise that we must have a more sensible distribution of work of all kinds, commercial as well as industrial. I think that there are safeguards against the dangers which the right hon. Gentleman fears. Why cannot the Amendment be accepted? Why should not the right hon. Gentleman avail himself of the help which it would afford should the occasion arise?

Mr. Willis: Surely it is becoming increasingly evident to people concerned with planning that we must make a start on decentralising offices because of the intense congestion in the centres of our cities. There was a very interesting programme on the T.V. last night, "Searchlight", which dealt precisely with this matter and with the necessity for decentralising office accommodation. The problems which are now very urgent
in the centres of our cities can be solved only by the dispersal of work. It seems to me that the President of the Board of Trade must take this factor into consideration.
The second point that I want to make is that we have areas all over the country—it is certainly true in Scotland —to which industries have gone since the end of the war. The most pressing problem in those areas today is to find office work for girls and others. At present, there is a terrific traffic problem all around Edinburgh because of the number of people who have to travel into Edinburgh to work in offices. Would it not be more convenient and better socially and industrially if office accommodation could be established outside Edinburgh in some of the Development Areas, especially when people from some of the Development Areas travel daily to work in Edinburgh? I am certain that within a few years some of the large insurance office people and others will be thinking in these terms.
At a time when thought is being given to this matter, when the problems are so urgent and pressing and we already know that there is a shortage of this type of accommodation in a large number of Development Areas, why should the President of the Board of Trade say to himself that he does not want power to take any office accommodation that might be available?
9.0 p.m.
Let me give another example. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) knows, there are in Edinburgh Government offices, which are supposed to be temporary, out at Sight-hill. It might be some time before the Government finish with them. If these offices had been in a Development Area and not in Edinburgh, surely it would be right that, if necessary, the Government should have power to say, "Let us


acquire them. If we can get a tenant, it will be a good thing for the area. We can offer the other inducements under the Bill for people to come to these areas." That is the kind of distribution that both sides of the Committee would want.
I cannot understand the President of the Board of Trade saying that he does not want to do that because of pressures on his Department. We know the type of pressure that will be exerted on the Board of Trade. Members will bring examples from their constituencies and come with a deputation to try to convince the right hon. Gentleman to take over accommodation. Most Ministers, however, are strong enough to resist these pressures if they are not warranted or if they are considered to be a bad thing. If the right hon. Gentleman is not strong enough, he should not be a Minister.

Mr. Dan Jones: I should like to ask the Minister a simple but, nevertheless, important question. Will the provisions of Clause 3 (1) be applied so that the financial grants will apply in the case of old cotton mills which are not suitable for alternative industries, which might otherwise be interested in taking over the buildings?

Mr. Maudling: Did the hon. Member really mean Clause 3 (1)?

Mr. Jones: Yes, I think so.

Mr. Maudling: Perhaps I may answer one or two of the points which have been made. I agree that the dispersal of office building is an important problem. I do not want to anticipate what will be said later about the control of office building, but the position briefly is as follows. If a big insurance company, for example, wanted to set up in South Wales, we would certainly have power to provide a building for it, as we could build a factory for it. Secondly, if the company said that it did not want a new building but wanted to take over part of an existing office building, it could, if the D.A.T.A.C. committee processed the application, be given financial help to enable it to go into the building.
What we do not agree to is that the Board of Trade should acquire office premises on the speculative basis that

there may or may not be tenants in the future. If a definite tenant wishes to have office accommodation, either we can build for him or we can provide financial help through Clause 4 to go into an existing building. On the whole, therefore, the points raised by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) are covered.

Mr. Lee: By the two provisos that the right hon. Gentleman has told us he possesses, he has more or less given away his whole case. How is it wrong to go the one logical step further and to provide within the Bill the necessary power so that he can take over office building to provide it for people who require it?
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was talking in terms of office blocks which may be three or five miles away from an industrial building. The President of the Board of Trade inferred that that might be possible but was not very probable. In fact, it is quite common. In my constituency, there is a Development Area. On the fringes of it, the Atomic Energy Authority has now built huge administrative buildings. The whole of the administrative staff has gone to Risley, on the fringe of the Golborne area, a Development Area.
We know from grim experience that the Government change their plans. We have had many Government factories close down. Indeed, in the same area, they contemplate closing an Admiralty depot. This huge new administrative block could, I suppose, be called an office block.
Suppose the Atomic Energy Authority decided on a change of plan and vacated it. In any event, in many instances main industrial premises are not only three miles but hundreds of miles away from the administrative block. Therefore, this matter is not quite so impossible as the right hon. Gentleman imagined when one of my hon. Friends spoke about a distance of five miles. Here is a development which is now attracting many hundreds of people into the area. But, as I have said, suppose that by a change of plan the Authority decided that it was no longer necessary for its purpose and it vacated the premises. How ridiculous it would be if there were a Development Area


where there were hundreds of people requiring employment and just over the border from that area there was a huge modern block of office accommodation and the Board of Trade had not the facilities to take over in order to obtain a tenant who could provide employment.
This is an argument which is perfectly practicable in my own constituency where we have suffered from this kind of thing for a long time and where we have had a great number of Government premises, such as camps, which have been simply neglected and allowed to run down. I was not by any means satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's answer that whilst he can provide financial assistance for some tenant to take over certain accommodation, he does not think it right and proper to take the powers which would enable him to assist a tenant to take over office accommodation as distinct from industrial premises.
Those of us who are familiar with the heavy engineering industry know that there is now a tendency for the office accommodation to be situated many miles away from the factory. A number of factories belonging to the same group spring up in a given area, with the office accommodation in the middle of the wide area in which the industrial premises are situated. This is by no means unusual in these days. Why should the right hon. Gentleman take power—with which we agree—to keep industrial premises and yet refuse to take power relating to the whole nerve-centre of the organisation, the administrative block? We on this side of the Committee just cannot understand this. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is conscious of the importance of the matter and if we do not have a satisfactory reply my advice to my hon. Friends would be to put the matter to the vote.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We have reached a state in the consideration of the Bill when the approach to the problems raised is quite different from that which we adopted previously in Committee. Therefore, I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will listen to the reasoning of my hon. Friends so that he may still consider accepting the Amendment. Even if he is not prepared to accept it, at least we are entitled to have an under-

taking that between now and Report the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his attitude.
I have in mind a concrete example which is typical of what may happen in some of the Development Areas. One of the most modern hotels in Glasgow was the Beresford Hotel—a lovely hotel as seen from the other end of Sauchiehall Street. I happen to know about it because I knew Hugh Fraser's father who built and owned it. A big proportion of his huge income was derived from the disposal of that lovely hotel. This hotel was sold to I.C.I., which is one of the most efficient concerns of its kind in the world. One does not run a big business like that unless the management is super-efficient, and therefore we can be sure that the management of I.C.I. would never have taken over the Beresford Hotel unless it was a good business proposition.
I consider that the Board of Trade should have complete authority to take the initiative in a situation of that kind. I have been reading this weekend that the unemployment situation in Scotland is far more serious than most of us have realised up to now, and, judging by the trend of developments, it looks like becoming more serious. Farther south, it is becoming mainly an issue between the South and the North. In the South and the Midlands there are hardly any unemployed, but there is a great shortage of manpower. In Scotland, in the North and in pockets of Lancashire and north Staffordshire there is a large amount of manpower available.
This is my approach to the problem. One would expect, when we are considering this Bill, that the President of the Board of Trade, who has great understanding of affairs regarding economic development—and we know that, because that statement is in complete harmony with his life's record of work —would have sought to remove this unbalance in our manpower in order to bring about the mobility which would produce a proper balance. Hence the need to accept the Amendment, to delete this limitation upon the authority of the Board, so that buildings like the one to which I have referred are made available to the Board of Trade and its officials. I know that the officials will carry out 100 per cent. whatever the House of


Commons inserts in the Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, and will approach the problem in an enthusiastic manner.
This is a great opportunity for the President of the Board of Trade to make a contribution towards bringing about a better balance both in manpower and in the availability of property during Britain's economic difficulties so that we

can make a better contribution than we have done in the past. Therefore, I appeal to the President, if he cannot accept our Amendment, at least to give an undertaking that he will reconsider it between now and Report.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 236, Noes 175.

Division No. 31.]
AYES
[9.14 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Forrest, George
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Aitken, W. T.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Loveys, Walter H.


Allason, James
Freeth, Denzil
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Gammans, Lady
MacArthur, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Gardner, Edward
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Barber, Anthony
George, J. C. (Pollok)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Batsford, Brian
Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Madden, Martin


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)
Maginnis, John E.


Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)
Godber, J. B.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Marlowe, Anthony


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, Douglas


Berkeley, Humphry
Gower, Raymond
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Bingham, R. M.
Grimond, J.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Bishop, F. P.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mawby, Ray


Black, Sir Cyril
Gurden, Harold
Maydon, Lt.Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bossom, Clive
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Stratton


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Morgan, William


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morrison, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvey, John (Waithamstow, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Braine, Bernard
Hay, John
Nabarro, Gerald


Brewis, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Neave, Airey


Bullard, Denys
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Nicholls, Harmer



Henderson, John (Cathcart)



Burden, F. A.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hendry, A. Forbes
Noble, Michael


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Nugent, Sir Richard


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hiley, Joseph
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Chataway, Christopher
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hobson, John
Page, Graham


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hooking, Phillip N.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Holland, Philip
Partridge, E.


Cleaver, Leonard
Hollingworth, John
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Collard, Richard
Holt, Arthur
Peel, John


Cooke, Robert
Hopkins, Alan
Percival, Ian


Cooper, A. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Peyton, John


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Howard, Hon, G. R. (St. Ives)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cordle, John
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Corfield, F. V.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pott, Percivall


Costain, A. P.
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Powell, J. Enoch


Coulson, J. M.
Hutchinson, Michael Clark
Prior, J. M. L.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Iremonger, T. L.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cunningham, Knox
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ramsden, James


Curran, Charles
Jackson, John
Rawlinson, Peter


Currie, G. B. H.
James, David
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rees, Hugh


Deedes, W. F.
Jennings, J. C.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


de Ferranti, Basil
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Renton, David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Doughty, Charles
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Duncan, Sir James
Kimball, Marcus
Roots, William


Duthie, Sir William
Kirk, Peter
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Eden, John
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliott, R. W.
Lagden, Geofrey
Seymour, Leslie


Emery, Peter
Leavey, J. A.
Sharples, Richard


Errington, Sir Eric
Leburn, Gilmour
Shepherd, William


Erroll, F. J.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.
Simon, Sir Jocelyn


Farr, John
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smithers, Peter


Finlay, Graeme,
Lilley, F. J. P.
Speir, Rupert




Stanley, Hon. Richard
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Webster, David


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Thorpe, Jeremy
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stodart, J. A.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Whitelaw, William


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Turner, Colin
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Studholme, Sir Henry
van Strauhenzee, W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Talbot, John E.
Vickers, Miss Joan
Wise, Alfred


Tapsell, Peter
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Teeling, William
Wade, Donald
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Temple, John M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Woollam, John


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wall, Patrick
Worsley, Marcus


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)



Thompson Richard (Croydon, S.)
Watts, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Harrison and Mr. Bryan.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Popplewell, Ernest


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hilton, A. V.
Prentice, R. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Holman, Percy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, Stan
Houghton, Douglas
Procter, W. T.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hoy, James H.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Randall, Harry


Beaney, Alan
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Reynolds, G. W.


Bowles, Frank
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rhodes, H.


Boyden, James
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Janner, Barnett
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Ross, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Edward


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stock, N.)


Callaghan, James
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Kelley, Richard
Small, William


Chetwynd, George
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cliffe, Michael
King, Dr. Horace
Sorensen, R. W.


Collick, Percy
Lawson, George
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ledger, Ron
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, Thomas


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Logan, David
Stonehouse, John


Darling, George
Loughlin, Charles



Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stones, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McCann, John
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacColl, James
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Deer, George
McInnes, James
Sylvester, George


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mackay, John (Wallsend)
Symonds, J. B.


Delargy, Hugh
Mackie, John
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dempsey, James
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Diamond, John
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dodds, Norman
Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Donnelly, Desmond
Manuel, A. C.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Mapp. Charles
Timmons, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness(Caerphilly)
Marsh, Richard
Warbey, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mason, Roy
Watkins, Tudor


Evans, Albert
Mellish, R. J.
Weitzman, David


Fernyhough, E.
Millan, Bruce
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fitch, Alan
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Forman, J. C.
Moody, A. S.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morris, John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mort, D. L.
Whitlock, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Neal, Harold
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Ginsburg, David
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, Rev. LI. (Abertillery)


Gourley, Harry
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Padley, W. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Woof, Robert


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paton, John
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pavitt, Laurence



Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayman, F. H.
Pearl, Frederick
Mr. Probert and Mr. Howell.


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pentland, Norman

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(BUILDING GRANTS.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, after "committee)", to insert:
or in the case of Scotland, a Scottish advisory committee".

The Chairman: It might be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in page 3, line 9, after "committee)", to insert:
or in the case of Wales, a Welsh advisory committee".
and to have two separate Divisions if necessary.

Mr. Willis: Under the Clause an advisory committee is to be set up which will take the place of D.A.T.A.C. It will be responsible for making recommendations to the Board of Trade for building grants to persons under Clause 3, and for building grants to undertakings under Clause 4. It will play an exceedingly important part in determining the type of recommendation made to the Board of Trade. Because of the importance of the part that is to be played by this committee we feel that there should be a separate committee for Scotland. We feel that because conditions in Scotland are in some respects different from those obtaining in England and probably even in Wales a Scottish committee would more suitably make recommendations.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman spent some time in Scotland, doing what he called listening and learning, but he visited only one small part of Scotland. He did not see the conditions obtaining in the Highlands and Islands, which have problems different even from those in the Lowlands or Ayrshire, and very different from anything obtaining in England or Wales. A Scottish committee would be more willing to recognise these peculiar conditions than would a United Kingdom one.
I also feel that, for reasons over which we have little control, a United Kingdom committee would be apt to underestimate the importance of matters which are important in a Scottish context. Certain undertakings in Scotland which are of importance to
that country cease to have the same degree of importance taken in the context of the United Kingdom. That has always been one of the reasons why I believe that we ought to have Scottish administration whenever possible.
I do not blame anybody for this situation; it is in the nature of things that persons who are concerned with areas with large numbers of unemployed are more likely to attach importance to them than to the need for a small factory in the Highlands, employing only 20 men, although in the context of the Highlands such a factory would be a very important undertaking.
On Report, the right hon. Gentleman is to move an Amendment to Clause 1 in which he refers to
having regard to the circumstances of the district generally and of any particular description of persons therein".
It seems to me that a Scottish committee is more likely to know the circumstances of the district generally and the particular description of persons therein than would a United Kingdom committee, which would probably sit in London. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to see the Bill implemented in the way he suggests a Scottish committee would be better than a United Kingdom one.
There was an article in this month's Lloyd's Bank Review, by Professor Peacock and Mr. Dosser, of Edinburgh University, which was very critical of the policy of the Government.

Mr. Maudling: Mr. Maudling indicated dissent.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Willis: It was certainly very critical of the policy of the Government, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's dissension. It said that one of the results of the Government's policy was likely to be an increase in inflationary pressures in the Midlands and the London area.
There is also a note on the article in today's Scotsman. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has read it, but, if not, I advise him to read the comment in the leading article in that newspaper. Professor Peacock suggests that the problem of unemployment should be regarded from quite a different point of view from that of the Government; that a number of regional factors should be considered, such as the type of industry necessary in a particular area. There is reference to the great need for much fuller regional statistical information, and much greater information on the regional expenditure pattern and on the have Scottish administration whenever purchases.


It seems to me that if the criticisms made by Professor Peacock are sound—and I think that there is something in them—a committee such as we suggest would be an admirable body to deal with this problem. It would help to give a much closer regional consideration to the matter. I dislike using the word "regional" in connection with Scotland. I do not think that the correct word. I should prefer "national". If this matter is to receive the national consideration which it merits, and which Professor Peacock argues that it should receive, and if the policy of the Government regarding unemployment is to be successful, this Amendment should be accepted. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be sympathetic to our proposals. We feel strongly about this matter. We consider that Scotland would be better served in this way. There is no doubt that Scotland needs better service.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the Minister will not underestimate the importance of this Amendment. It is not just a case of providing an opportunity to proclaim the importance of Scotland. Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that we really mean what we propose.
This advisory committee is important. It must be, since it is dealing with matters which the Government claim are essential and important. It will lead a great new building drive, and so we ought to recognise its importance. I am sure that the Minister will agree about that. The committee will deal with building grants and loans and undertakings. It has to judge whether it is expedient to take action and whether or not a firm which is being investigated will be able to make good without recourse to further aid from the Government. It would appear that it is a purely deliberative committee. It would be better to have one committee for the whole country dealing with the same kind of cases from all over the country.
I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that he should go a little beyond that and appreciate the history of the problem he is dealing with. If anything stands out it is that Wales and Scotland cannot be treated on exactly the same basis or have applied to them exactly the same policies for a solution that can be

applied to the rest of the country. The failure in respect of long-standing grievances of Wales and Scotland has been due to the fact that the Government set up one body of machinery for the whole country.
Not only has unemployment in Scotland continued to be double that of the rest of the country, but it is getting worse. In the application of this centralised policy to the new committee, the Government are continuing the policy of the past. Is the right hon. Gentleman worried about uniformity of application? If this Amendment were accepted the committee would be making its decisions on the basis of general directions laid down by the President of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman would have to say yea or nay to any decision made by the committee.
There is another centralised body in Whitehall, the Treasury, which also has to give assent to anything. If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about fairness and justice to the whole country in respect of any decision the Scottish committee could make, he has himself and the Treasury to look after that aspect. We are concerned that there should be advising him in respect of new developments in Scotland a committee fully seized of the conditions in Scotland, not only as to unemployment but in respect of trade prospects and the kind of undertaking that would be desirable from that point of view.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is considerable concern in Scotland that things have been allowed to happen there concerning which, if they had been allowed to happen in England, action would have been taken long ago. That applies outside this field. I remember a Government committee inquiring into something which could be done at Prestwick Airport. You will, appreciate, Sir William, that I am making no direct reference to the fact that you were concerned in that inquiry. A decision was given and the Government turned it down. Everyone in Scotland believed that if it had related to London Airport the job would have been done even without a committee considering it
The least that the people of Scotland should have is the assurance that the committee given these important tasks


and making these decisions should be fully seized of the situation in Scotland. I am sure my Welsh friends can say the same in the case of Wales. A certain aspect and attitude in relation to something happening away up in the Highlands is adopted by a small, impersonal committee in London. We have to remember that part of the advice they will be given will be related to Clause 1 and the question of the relationship between expenditure involved and employment likely to be provided.
It may be that in different parts of the country the committee would arrive at a different decision about the amount of expenditure related to the number of jobs, but the further we go into the Highlands the fewer are the jobs created for greater expenditure. If a rule of thumb system is applied to the whole country it will be to the detriment of employment required in the worst parts of Scotland. It is desirable from the point of view of Scotland that we should have this advisory committee. That would satisfy opinion in Scotland.
If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about lack of uniformity in application and unfairness to the rest of the country, he should remember that the Board of Trade will be able to accept or reject the advice given. In addition, from the point of view of central control there is always the Treasury to consider.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider the suggestions made in the Amendment from the point of view of the well-being of Scotland.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: So far, the Scottish forwards have had the ball always from the line-out, but as inside-half I have decided to open up the game and to pass the ball to my backs alongside me. By opening up the game of the advisory committee I hope to obtain more information so that we may know exactly what that committee is supposed to do.
First, we have no knowledge at all of the number of the advisory committee and no undertaking that if there is an advisory committee it will contain representatives from either Scotland or Wales. We can obtain that information from the Minister. We are more concerned, however, with getting a separate advisory

committee for each country. Perhaps I may point out to the first Scottish forward involved in this game that we are not a region but a country.
The committee envisaged in the Bill is far too large for three separate countries. Each country has separate features. If I may say so respectfully to my Scottish friends, we in Wales also have our own language. The Minister should bear in mind that the question of language may influence much of the advice given to the advisory committee. Even if he does not accept the Amendment he should at least have a Welsh-speaking Welshman on the advisory committee.
I am concerned with other matters, however, which are of equal importance. One important question will be the degree of disablement among the unemployed people. We had a debate on this matter in Committee earlier. It is most important, because the area which I represent contains a large number of pneumonconiosis cases. Special members of the advisory committee will be needed to deal with that problem when determining the question of building grants. In another part of the constituency the question of inaccessibility arises. There are many important features.
Some hon. Members may ask why I want an advisory committee for either Scotland or Wales. They may point out that there will be a national committee. Scottish hon. Members can speak for themselves about this, but I should like to make the case for Wales. Why is it necessary, for instance, in agriculture to have a Lands Sub-Commission for Wales unless there are features peculiar to Wales? Why should there be a separate sub-committee, advisory in character, for hill farming? Why should there be an advisory committee for Wales on afforestation? Why should Wales be divided into North and South for afforestation? Why should Wales have joint education committees unless there are peculiar features which require special advice in this respect? I would mention other bodies such as the Civil Aviation Advisory Council. We are told that we need advice in the air, but what we require here is advice on the ground about unemployment.
The employers have an association in Wales, and there are trade unions with their headquarters in the Principality.


The advice from all these bodies, when they gave advice to an advisory committee for Wales, would be of advantage to the Minister. No one should welcome advice in this direction more than the President of the Board of Trade.
9.45 p.m.
If it is advisable to have management corporations for Wales, Scotland and for England, why is it inadvisable to have advisory committees? We welcome a management corporation for Wales, but we should welcome also an advisory committee. We shall not have an opportunity of raising this subject again. If it is not possible to have a separate advisory committee for Wales, would it be possible to have a sub-committee of the advisory committee for Wales and for Scotland? Whether the advisory committee be for Wales or for the whole of the United Kingdom, would it be possible to have on it members concerned with National Parks, which is a feature in which I am particularly interested?
It is inadvisable for an inside half to hang on to the ball too long, so I pass it on to the Welsh backs hoping that they will do very well with it.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I am not sure whether I speak as a full back or a half back.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Lady is speaking with Scottish colours.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I am certain that hon. Members have no doubt that Scottish Members are able to speak for themselves. I should like for a few minutes to support them in stressing the great importance of the Amendment. The President of the Board of Trade will remind us that the function of the committee is the same as the function of the committee under D.A.T.A.K.—simply to advise him whether applications which will be submitted to him later for grant are suitable.
What we quarrel with is not so much the composition of the committee, though perhaps that could be improved, but the fact that there is only one committee instead of three, one each for England, Scotland and Wales. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will say that, as the committee's function is purely to decide whether a project is a sound financial proposition, it is not necessary to have three separate committees. The

committee has not only to decide that. It must decide whether it is a sound economic proposition. but it must decide also the prospects of success of the firm in a particular locality. That is an absolutely vital consideration. Local circumstances and conditions, labour requirements and the labour available in the area must be taken into account. After all, the purpose of the Bill is not to make grants to firms which are financially sound. Its whole purpose is to provide employment and to attract industries into difficult and inaccesible areas. Therefore, it is vital to consider local circumstances.
I give as an example areas where mines are about to close. Some of them are in valleys which the President of the Board of Trade never tires of telling us are inaccessible. The Government ask how industries can be taken to the valleys. Not much industry may be needed in some of the valleys. It may be that a smaller type of industry would fulfil the need, but how will a committee sitting in London know the difficulties of Cwmllynfell, let alone the fact that its members cannot pronounce it? In fact, I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to pronounce it when he comes to reply.
I would ask him not to dismiss this Amendment by saying "This committee has been there for a long time. We have had it for other Acts, and it has worked very well. It is purely a committee of accountants, industrialists and trade unionists. We cannot disperse them, and have regional representatives and committees." If he is to make the Act work successfully, as we all hope he will, and bring work to these distant and inaccessible areas, I ask him most seriously to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Maudling: Perhaps I enter into this discussion in the capacity of goalkeeper. I think that it would be a great pity to decide this on the basis of regionalism—[An HON. MEMBER: "Nationalism."]—or nationalism, if hon. Members prefer that word. Earlier today we had a discussion of a vigorous and slightly heated character, in which everyone agreed that there should not be discrimination between England, Scotland and Wales, and that it was absolutely essential that there should be no bias in the operation of the Bill.


We should remember that the advisory committee is not concerned with policy. Policy is a matter for the Government. The committee will, of course, be operating under general directions given to it by the Board with the consent of the Treasury, and the general directions that we shall give it can, if necessary, cover the various points about disablement and the like that have been mentioned.
The sole purpose of the committee is to operate on those general terms, to examine individual applications and to say whether it thinks that the projects will stand on their own feet eventually, and what help they will need in the initial stages. A very important factor is the remoteness of an area; it is not a question of whether it is in Scotland or in Wales, but whether it is remote, and that is the only factor that should be taken into account in that connection.
Of course, it is very important for the committee to have all the information it requires about local circumstances, and it would be foolish to expect it to contain within itself the local information it wants. As a matter of fact, I believe that there are representative Scotsmen and Welshmen on the committee as it is. The point is that it will have all the information it needs supplied through the Board of Trade controllers—in the circumstances, I hesitate to say regional controllers—and through the other authorities concerned.
It would be quite wrong to suggest that the applications should be dealt with on a differential basis, depending on what part of Great Britain they may come from. Each individual application should be dealt with consistently on the same principles, in accordance with the general directions, and in accordance with all the available local information.
Scottish Members might reflect that recent developments have not been altogether bad from the Scottish point of view. As we all know, the British Motor Corporation recently announced a big extension, in which the total number of new jobs in Scotland will be as big as those in England and Wales put together. That is not a bad start—

[An HON. MEMBER: "Chicken feed."] To call it "chicken feed" is silly; 5,600 jobs is not "chicken feed".
Hon. Members may be interested to know what I am told has appeared on the tape this evening. Lord Rootes has announced in Paisley that his group is planning to put up a factory at Linwood, close to the Pressed Steel works. A labour force of 3,500 over about three years has been discussed. I therefore do not think that the arrangements neglect the needs of Scotland—

Mr. Chetwynd: What about the North-East?

Mr. Maudling: That is exactly the point. Once the needs of one area are stressed, quite rightly, the North-East comes up, Cumberland comes up, Wales comes up, which shows that if we are to work the system properly we must have uniformity of administration. Policy must remain with the Board of Trade, and the Board remains subject to the pressures of hon. Members rightly pursuing the interests of their own districts.
The general terms will be laid down by the Board, but I suggest that it would be quite wrong to split the committee on a national or regional basis, thereby implying that individual applications should be dealt with differently just because they come from different districts. I suggest that that is quite out of accord both with the spirit of the Bill and the earlier discussions we had this afternoon.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I can see the force of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that it is essential in working a scheme of this kind that the criteria should be the same. He himself said that it was essential for the fulfilment of this task that there should be on the committee people of local experience who know the local conditions. How does he propose to ensure that? I gather that he will ensure it by making it certain that there will be people with knowledge of Wales and Scotland, as well as other parts of the United Kingdom, on the committee.
The right hon. Gentleman has provided in the Bill for Wales, Scotland and England separately to have three management corporations. He therefore feels that it is essential in the fulfilment of the tasks which the President of the


Board of Trade will have under the Bill, when it becomes an Act, to ensure that the administration is divided into three countries. Does he not think that that in itself requires that there should be a similar division in the field of advice? For example, these corporations as they go on will gather experience in this matter. Is that experience to be made available to the committee when it comes to decide applications for grants and so on? These are matters of importance.
This debate is an indication, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, that Scotland and Wales have one thing it common—and I am sure that my colleagues will not mind my saying this—that in this age, when all the trend is for industry to gather together into an ever narrower part of the United Kingdom, Scotland and Wales happen to be on the periphery of that development. We have had a rehearsal this evening of what, I hope, will be a very happy encounter at Cardiff Arms Park on Saturday. We are united now, we shall be divided for a couple of hours on Saturday, but we shall come together again.
The desire to have a Welsh committee indicates the very widespread feeling that we are increasingly going on to the periphery. Take, for example, North-West Wales. As an old miner, I have a deep regard for the old slate quarries and the industries there. Not long ago I went to Blaenau Ffestiniog and I saw there communities, among the best in the kingdom, which are constantly declining. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands what I mean.
Behind all that has been said this evening is not a plea for charity. We are speaking for communities which have given their talents and skills to this country as a whole for over a century. One of my hon. Friends spoke about Cardiff. I can remember the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) speaking for the miners of Wales. He talked about the "black diamonds" in our pits, and said that Cardiff and the North-East ports kept Britain going.
Over the past few years, the Government have neglected these areas. We welcome the steps being taken now, but

behind our speeches is a message from those communities which have played so great a part in the building of Britain. We ask that they shall have a fair and square deal. That is the spirit behind all that we have said.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I support the Amendments. I should have thought that the President of the Board of Trade would have welcomed them. The purpose of the advisory committee is to give the right hon. Gentleman the best possible guidance and assistance in implementing the Bill. The more informed and detailed is the knowledge which members of the committee have of conditions in particular areas, the more expert and valuable will be the assistance they can give to the right hon. Gentleman in the operation of the Bill.
10.0 p.m.
One of the main functions of the Bill is to deal with problem areas which have proved particularly difficult and which the existing machinery has been unable to assist. By far the greater number of those problem areas are to be found in Wales and Scotland. A great deal of the attention of any advisory committee, whether it be an overall committee or a committee concerned with a particular country, will be directed to problem areas particularly in Wales and Scotland.
It seems to me that there is only one argument which can be raised against having separate advisory committees for the different countries, namely, the need to have uniform application in the implementation of the Bill and consistent advice given to the Minister on the problems confronting him.
There is, surely, abundant safeguard in Clause 4 (2) to prevent inconsistent advice being given in this matter. If the general directions given to the advisory committee by the President of the Board of Trade are adequate, they will ensure that there is not inconsistent implementation of policy between one advisory committee and another. If the right hon. Gentleman in his directions gives the committee the assistance which it deserves under the terms of the Bill, there should be no danger of having inconsistent advice by the committee for Scotland, for example, as compared with the committee for Wales or the committee for England.


If there is an advisory committee for the whole of the United Kingdom, one of the cries which will be raised is that there should be persons on the advisory committee from Wales or from Scotland, persons who have particular connections with the industrial life of Wales and Scotland. In many ways, this will produce an undesirable situation. Those on the committee by reason of their knowledge of Welsh conditions and those on the committee by reason of their knowledge of Scottish conditions will fight on a Welsh basis or a Scottish basis within the overall committee. In my view, that will produce an unbalanced approach to the problems with which we are concerned. It would be better to have separate advisory committees working under general directions given in precisely the same form to each but bringing to their particular problems intimate knowledge of conditions in the countries with which they are concerned.
This would follow the pattern which has been adopted in almost every other sphere of Government activity. The Government often extol the advantages of administrative devolution. They are continually claiming credit for setting up in Cardiff offices and departments to deal with the Welsh problems and Welsh affairs. To resist this Amendment would be to go quite contrary to the claim which they make of being interested in administrative devolution as a whole.

Mr. Bence: I was surprised by the reply the President of the Board of Trade gave in refuting the need for having an advisory committee in Scotland. After all, Clause 3 provides in its opening words.
For the purposes of this part of this Act the Board may with the consent of the Treasury, and after consultation with an advisory committee …
The words are "with an advisory committee".
If an industrialist in the Midlands or in the London area has been refused a development certificate and the Board of Trade says to him, "There is serious unemployment in Scotland. Notwithstanding the possible employment of another 6,000 people by B.M.C. we shall still have 90,000 unemployed," why cannot the President of the Board of Trade have an advisory committee in Scotland with which he can consult rather than

an advisory committee established in London?
We in Scotland have a Trades Union Congress, which is representative of all the trade union movement in Scotland. It is shortly to have a conference in Rothesay, I think. Anyone in touch with events in Scotland knows very well that the Scottish T.U.C. plays a tremendous part in discussions on planning, on the distribution of industry and on employment in Scotland. It is a very important body. Since the President of the Board of Trade will be obliged to consult an advisory committee, why should not he be obliged to consult the Scottish Trades Union Congress? When plans are being formulated for establishing new industries or extending old industries in Scotland, there should be consultation with the Scottish T.U.C.
I believe that from time to time the Scottish T.U.C. has had consultations both with the Secretary of State for Scotland and with the President of the Board of Trade. That is a good thing. If that is a good thing for Scotland, why cannot we have an advisory committee in Scotland which the President of the Board of Trade can consult? It is not suggested in the Bill that any advisory committee that may be set up will have power to dictate to the President of the Board of Trade. It is not a question of advisory committees for Wales, Scotland or England giving different points of view to the President of the Board of Trade. If an industrialist wants to go to Wales, the President of the Board of Trade should be able to consult an advisory committee in Wales. If an industrialist wants to go to Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman should consult an advisory committee in Scotland.
This does not seem to be an extraordinary proposal at all. It is usual for big industrial enterprises to consult all sorts of authorities in certain areas if they are thinking of expanding to those areas. I was surprised when the President of the Board of Trade said that difficulties would be created. I think that the Amendment would simplify matters. If a firm wants to go to West Wales or to Llanelly, who better to consult on sites, suitability of labour, and general transport conditions than representatives from West Wales or Llanelly?


The President of the Board of Trade should not seek advice from a committee in London, but from a committee in Wales.
I have no doubt that when the directors of the British Motor Corporation decided to set up their factory the organisation's technicians consulted people on the spot. I cannot see why the President of the Board of Trade should not set up advisory committees in Wales and Scotland. The Trades Union Congress in Scotland, which has its own autonomy and is representative of all the trade union movement, is well respected. I believe that it has representatives on the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). It is represented on many of the voluntary economic institutions in Scotland. Surely it would be a good thing for the better distribution of industry if the President of the Board of Trade were to have an advisory committee in Scotland and Wales.
There is another thing about which I have felt rather upset. I happen to be a Welshman representing a Scottish constituency and living in Scotland, so I speak for both Wales and Scotland on this matter. We have been conscious of this for many years. I am sure that the Scots are conscious of it; I know that the Welsh are. It is extraordinary that if the Government want an unbiased committee in the United Kingdom they must have it in London and it must be drawn from England. If they have a Welsh or Scottish committee, it is biased. The President of the Board of Trade emphasised that this was dangerous and bias should be eliminated and, accordingly, there should not be a Welsh or Scottish committee but there should be one here. It is doubtful whether members of the advisory committee will be drawn from native Wales or Scotland.

Mr. Maudling: There are one Welshman and three Scotsmen on the committee.

Mr. Bence: I hope they are not anglicised Welsh and Scots. If they are native Welsh and Scots, it is a little more hopeful. Even in that case, that is dangerous ground. It is better to have the advisory committee for Scotland set up and sitting in Scotland and for the Minister to be able to consult it in Scotland, with a representative of the Scottish T.U.C. drawn from the trade union movement in Scotland included within the com-

mittee. My Welsh colleagues have flung the ball about very well this afternoon. I would only say that I hope that at Cardiff Arms Park on Saturday they do a little better than they did at Twickenham.

Mr. G. Thomas: I am glad that my first speech for a long time in the House of Commons should be on this important question. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister is pulling back. In five Parliaments in which it has been my privilege to serve, I have listened to many a debate on Scottish affairs. I do not pretend that I have listened to them all, but hitherto I have never found the Welsh and the Scots quite as united as they are on this important issue.
It is significant that what unites us is fear for our bread and butter. It is the anxiety of the Scots and of the Welsh, both of whom, in the past, experienced the worst stage of economic depression. Now, in a period of prosperity, as those parts of the United Kingdom that are experiencing the worst measure of such unemployment as exists, with the possibility of more and knowing that our rate is higher than that appertaining over England as a whole, we have a right to say to the Minister that in this Bill he should make sure not only that he has the machinery for relieving unemployment, but that the voice of the Welsh and of the Scottish people is fairly heard.
Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who has the honour of sharing with an hon. Member opposite and myself the representation of the City of Cardiff in the House of Commons, spoke rough words against a bias in the Board of Trade against the City of Cardiff. I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that one sure way of removing even the suspicion of bias is to accept that the people on the spot know better than he does the needs and the circumstances of the area.
10.15 p.m.
I recall that in the Labour Government of 1945–50 one of my hon. Friends, or more probably one of my right hon. Friends, because they put their foot in it more often than my hon. Friends, got into trouble for saying that the man in Whitehall knew best. The party opposite made a great deal of capital out


of it. Hon. Members opposite thought the man in Whitehall knew least of all. Now, apparently, the man in Whitehall does know best that the people who come from the two countries referred to are not the best people to advise the Minister on this question.
I congratulate the Scots on the welcome news they have had tonight about the motor factory which is to be established in Scotland. We would have been very glad to have had it in Wales. We would have been glad if the announcement had named Cardiff, but so be it. The factory is to go to Scotland. There is another which we hope will come to Cardiff if the Board of Trade and the motor company concerned know what they are about. But is not the Minister aware that by accepting these Amendments he will give a message to Scotland and to Wales that he is determined that the voice of the people of those countries shall be heard in the planning for employment in their areas?
The Clause, without the Amendments, is almost suffocating in its precautions. I believe that on the grounds of efficiency and of urgency the specialist knowledge of the people of Scotland and Wales ought to be available to the Minister. No one ever appoints an advisory committee without making sure that it is staffed with specialists, with people whose training and background and experience give them the authority to give the necessary advice. Who is more fitted, with the complex economy of these islands, to advise the Minister on problems in Wales and Scotland than the people who live there and who have a share in the industrial and commercial life of those two countries? I hope that tonight the Minister will not be too big to have second thoughts and that at least he will say that he will give further consideration to this question.

Mr. Manuel: I am quite sure that it has been made unmistakably clear to the President of the Board of Trade that there is a wealth of feeling flowing throughout Scotland and Wales on the subject of these two Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman said in his brief reply that this issue should not be decided on the basis of national standards, or words to that effect. I should like to know his reaction in the inner circles of the Government when the

Secretary of State for Scotland is bringing forward a case for better treatment for Scotland because of our peculiar problems. Does the right hon. Gentleman take up this completely hard attitude? Is it because he is one of the ablest young men in the Government that we cannot obtain what we ought to have for Scotland in connection with many matters which the Secretary of State has to raise in the Cabinet?
The right hon. Gentleman also said that this question should be decided on the basis of all available information being collated by one advisory committee. Obviously, it would appeal to everyone in the Chamber, because a Scottish Committee could give him all the available information much more easily, concisely and readily than this single Committee for the whole of the United Kingdom.
I am delighted, as I am sure all Scottish Members are, that we have managed to secure another 5,000 jobs, or approximately that number, but do not let us forget that the December Ministry of Labour figure for unemployment is over 98,000. Indeed, I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is right in saying that it is now over 100,000. Therefore, the jobs created have dealt only with a twentieth part of our problem. We are delighted to have had that improvement, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman is not feeling too complacent because more jobs have been secured as a result of industries going North.
A Scottish industrial committee working on behalf of the Board of Trade would be a very good thing indeed. Scotland has a problem peculiar to itself, one which cannot be dealt with nor ferreted out without a committee composed of and drawn from Scottish interests. Scottish committees could very appropriately be set up by the Government and have representatives on this advisory committee. I am thinking of the Scottish Crofting Commission, which is trying to stop the depopulation of the Highlands. This Commission is not only dealing with crofting, but with ancillary employment, in order to carry out the functions delegated to it in the Act which brought it into being. These problems would be much better dealt with by a Committee such as we suggest.


I would also suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, after his visit to Scotland and the sort of feeling that he would have about some of the deputations that met him, this might appeal to him, and that a Scottish advisory committee would be a tremendous fillip in Scotland itself, as well as a guarantee of the sincerity of the Government in their intentions regarding the Bill. It would be some guarantee that a great benefit would accrue if that concession, if it is a concession, could be given. I can imagine that the Board of Trade and the Treasury will place great value upon and have great regard to the recommendations of these advisory committees.
If that be so, I recognise that possibly the President of the Board of Trade will have obstacles to overcome with the Treasury if he gets a stream of information coming to him supporting a great many applications. Nevertheless, I feel that he would be far better buttressed to argue with the Treasury if he had the collective information from the various interests in Scotland, which certainly could present a much stronger case in regard to the inaccessible areas into which it is so necessary that we should direct industry.
While mentioning the question of inaccessibility, I am reminded that the President of the Board of Trade has repeatedly said that the difficulty lies in these inaccessible areas. I have tried, during the various stages of the Bill, to pin-point the problem of the inaccessible areas in the Highland counties where, I agree, the problem is very difficult. I am sure that there again the right hon. Gentleman would have much better information from a committee drawn from Scottish interests, which could help him greatly in regard to the attraction of industries to Scotland.
May I put a last point? I am sure that Scotland's single biggest problem today is the question of unemployment. We have large problems in connection with housing and other things, but although this is our single biggest problem the President of the Board of Trade is not willing to consider having an advisory committee for Scotland.
I tell the right hon. Gentleman that our training and background of government in Scotland has all been around the idea that there were separate Government Departments. In fact, our history is much better than Wales in this respect because we have separate Departments for agriculture, health, fisheries and roads and the Scottish Home Department, all covering a wide field. What are the views of the Scottish Ministers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I wish there were a Scottish Minister here, because it must have been known that I was going to raise this point. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland can make a reply. What do Scottish Ministers think about a Scottish advisory committee for dealing with the single biggest headache in Scotland, unemployment, which is bearing so heavily and hardly on our people at present?
Where the whole of Government is separated into Government Departments, as I have indicated, do they consider that those problems are more important than the single one of unemployment? I would like to know whether any Scottish Minister is prepared to justify that argument today in the situation surrounding us in Scotland in the areas which are becoming derelict, where there is a hard core of unemployment and where there does not seem to be any relief of it.
I am delighted to see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland coming into the Chamber. I know that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) will be forthcoming if it is within his power, but I do not know whether he heard my point? I was saying that there were separate Government Departments for education, roads, health, fisheries, electricity and also the Scottish Home Department. Yet, when we come to our single biggest problem, the President of the Board of Trade is repulsing the principle we have in nearly all other directions. What is the view of Scottish Ministers? Have they been consulted about the Scottish advisory committee? We are due a reply on that point before the discussion on these two Amendments closes.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: We are disappointed and disturbed by what the President of the Board of Trade said in resisting these two Amendments. I got the impression—I hope I am wrong—that the right hon. Gentleman thought that this centralised body, and the general rules issued to it, would be enough to help to solve the problems of areas in Wales and Scotland, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) rightly described this evening as being problem areas.
The whole point of the argument behind the two Amendments is that we consider that the high and persistent incidence of unemployment in Wales and Scotland requires special attention.
10.30 p.m.
If we are to depend upon a highly centralised body to apply general rules throughout Great Britain, and expect those rules and that procedure to solve special problems, then heavy unemployment in the Highlands of Scotland, for instance, or in Caernarvon and Anglesey, and other parts of Wales, will persist. I support these Amendments because I think they contain a practical suggestion towards making this Bill administratively efficient.
If the Bill is to succeed at all, the administration must be sufficient for its purpose and its machinery should be adequate. The central point is the advisory committee, which will have to consider every application from every part of the country, from Caernarvon to Kent and from Caithness to Cornwall. Therefore, it will have to deal with the needs and potentials of widely differing areas. It will have to evaluate not only economic and geographical factors but also imponderables; psychological factors such as the tradition of labour relations in a given district, the number of school leavers, the pattern of education in that district and its likely development in the light of the advent of new industry.
It is beyond the capacity of any centralised committee such as is envisaged in the Bill to perform that task fairly and adequately. For that reason alone, because such a committee cannot

hope fully to take into account the national and local factors which I have described, I think that the Amendments should be accepted.
There is a second argument which rests on our experience of this advisory committee under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, 1958, because it is to be the same committee. I make no accusation or complaint against the individual members of that committee which administered the 1958 Act and which we understand is to administer this Bill when it becomes an Act. I am sure that they are admirable people who did their best within the limits of their powers and terms of reference. But the fact remains that the 1958 Act was a failure, partly because that committee could not cope with the flood of applications. On 17th June, 1959, I put a number of Questions to the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to elicit information about how many applications had come from Wales, England and Scotland, how many had been accepted, how many were rejected and how many were still under consideration. That was about twelve months after the 1958 Act had, as it were, got into its stride.
The information was interesting. From Wales 42 applications were received. At the end of the year 8 had been accepted, 12 had been rejected and 22 were still under consideration. The Scottish position was worse, 97 applications had been received during the year —a year is a fair test for an Act which was described by the Government as urgently necessary—27 had been accepted, 8 had been rejected and 62 —two-thirds—of the applications were still under consideration.

Mr. Manuel: They are still under consideration.

Mr. Roberts: I rather think they are; we have no news of their being accepted in the past few months. In England 175 applications were received, 20 were accepted, 41 rejected and 94 still under consideration. After twelve months nearly 60 per cent. of the applications were still under consideration.
There is a further point in connection with those figures. Not only was the committee unable to cope with those applications, but it turned down far too many quite viable applications. The


figures of the number of applications given to me in the House were, so we were told, regarded as "firm and eligible." Therefore, less than half of the firm and eligible applications were accepted. which shows that the committee, which was not an incompetent one, was to some extent an ignorant one. It cannot have had access to the full information, or have been able to evaluate the information regarding the applications.
If the Government were in earnest about solving the problems of the areas we have spoken about so many times in discussion of this Bill—the peripheral areas which are specially difficult today and which have been problem areas for generations—they must decide that special measures must be taken to solve these problems. Otherwise, we shall go on for the rest of this century, as we have during the first half of it, living with this chronic problem of unemployment and depopulation in North-West Wales, West Wales and the Highlands of Scotland. If the Bill really means what it says, the Government will agree that committees to advise both in regard to the Scottish and the Welsh problems are administratively necessary for its proper implementation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) spoke of the slate quarrymen of my constituency and adjacent constituencies. He paid tribute to them as a community and as individuals and I was proud to hear his words. I speak for them tonight and for the fine race of men in areas like the Highlands of Scotland whose future cannot be assured unless through this Bill or similar Measures special means are found for assisting these people and their children to earn their livelihood.

Mr. Ifor Davies: As one of the latest recruits to the Welsh team we have heard about this evening, I wish to say a few words in support of the Amendment, which asks for a Welsh advisory committee. I wish to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) that this is in the interests of administrative efficiency.
I listened with great interest to the comments of the President of the Board of Trade when he emphasised that this

committee would have nothing to do with policy but would be merely of an advisory nature. The fact that they are to be merely advisory recognises, nevertheless, that it is of some importance. There are problems which are peculiar to Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) urged that there should be a Welsh-speaking Welshman on the committee. I agree that that is a matter of great importance, but I wish to mention a further matter. The Minister was recently called upon to make a decision about the siting of a plant in Wales. I would voice, in passing, an appreciation of that decision which affects at least the area in proximity to my own constituency. I wish to acknowledge what was done in that direction. I am sure that the Minister received a great deal of benefit from Welshmen in connection with that very difficult problem on which he had to make a decision. Moreover, the very fact that we have a Minister for Welsh Affairs—[HON. MEMBERS: Where is he?]—and, indeed, the very fact that we have a Minister of State is a recognition of the fact that there are matters relative to Wales which need attention and the advice of Welshmen.
I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I would urge that there is a very strong case indeed for having a special Welsh advisory committee. I say this not because there is anything peculiar about Welshmen, although they are said to be persuasive. I hope that the few words which I have contributed to the debate will help to persuade the Committee to agree to this Amendment.

Mr. Dempsey: I wish to associate myself with the Amendment because, with all due respect to other hon. Members, the other section of the United Kingdom which is entitled to an advisory committee is Scotland. There is no question about that. We in Scotland have proved throughout the centuries that we have our own peculiarities. We have our own legislation. Indeed, one of the great arguments for having our own advisory committee is that we have our own unemployment problem, which is a very big one. Obviously, therefore, we must have a competent committee in Scotland


capable of advising the Board of Trade that the matter is urgent. Surely that is reasonable.
Unfortunately, Scotland is treated in these matters not as a nation but as a county. Why, I do not know. But it really is a nation. It has it own culture, its own administration, its own executive and also some of the finest brains in the world. I am speaking for that part of the United Kingdom this evening and asking that it should receive the recognition to which it is entitled.
I am wondering tonight whether we have a Secretary of State for Scotland who is prepared to speak up for that country. If he had been prepared to speak up for Scotland as he should I believe that the Bill we are discussing would have been differently drafted. The matters affecting Scotland are complex. Even our legal system differs profoundly from that which operates in England.
I am making every effort to prove quite conclusively that Scotland has made out a case for having its own advisory committee. It is because of the peculiarity of Scotland that we have a Secretary of State, a Minister of State and Under-Secretaries of State. It is because of the tremendous development of Scottish affairs that we have been recognised in that way. Why the President of the Board of Trade should baulk at the appointment of an advisory committee for Scotland is beyond my comprehension. We even have our own Trades Union Congress—

Mr. Willis: A very good one too.

Mr. Dempsey: —specially adapted and specially geared to deal with peculiarly Scottish problems. I cannot be convinced that that is not a recognition of the need for Scotland to have her fair share.
10.45 p.m.
If we had an effective Scottish advisory committee the Ministers would recognise that the United Kingdom does not terminate on the borders of London but stretches to Caithness and Orkney. We believe that we should have competent people who understand the peculiar problems confronting Scotland —who understand, for instance, the problems of the Highlands and

Islands and of sheep rearing and hill farming. It is because of all these peculiarities that we have been raising our voice on behalf of the northern part of the United Kingdom and insisting that it should be recognised in the Bill.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): As my right hon. Friend has said, the chairman of the present D.A.T.A.C. committee is a Scotsman and there are two other Scottish members of that committee.

Mr. Willis: That has nothing to do with the argument.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member should remember his own speech made in an Adjournment debate in 1949 on Scottish government.

Mr. Dempsey: I am dealing not with personalities but with principles. We are fighting for a principle. The principle is that if we are recognised in these other spheres as a nation in our own right, we are entitled to be recognised in the Bill. Other advisory committees have been established in Scotland. I could recite many of them. The Board of Trade has its own organisation there and has recognised the peculiarity of Scottish difficulties. The Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and the National Assistance Board have Scottish committees. Why cannot the Board of Trade have a Scottish advisory committee? Surely there is nothing unreasonable in making such a plea.
These committees are able to bring the nature of the Scottish difficulties to the attention of the Ministers concerned, in this case the President of the Board of Trade. We are an important, integral part of the United Kingdom, and if we are recognised in all these other spheres we are entitled to be recognised in the Bill. That can easily be accomplished by the right hon. Gentleman accepting the Amendment and allowing Scotland to have its own advisory committee.

Mr. Willis: I was most dissatisfied with the peremptory manner in which the President of the Board of Trade answered the case which was put before him and also with his use of this opportunity to give the latest news "off the


tape." I thought that was rather a "Smart Alec" move. I have no objection to his being pleased that a factory is to be taken to Scotland. All my hon. Friends are glad that jobs are being provided in Scotland, but the right hon. Gentleman still has a long road to travel. The Scottish Council has told us that we need 12,000 jobs in Scotland each year. Out of these two concerns we are to get 9,000 jobs during the next three years. I would tell the right hon. Gentleman what he has been told by the Scottish Trades Union Congress: in Scotland we still have a long way to go. The right hon. Gentleman made a very peremptory reply in one instance, but he did not reply to many of the arguments.

Mr. Ross: There have been many since then.

Mr. Willis: There have been some very good ones. My hon. Friend mentioned the time taken to settle applications made to present D.A.T.A.C. committee. No reply has been made to that. This subject has been raised in the House of Commons over and over again. It is a very cogent argument for having separate committees to get the job done more expeditiously. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to think that it is necessary to answer these points.
The single point made by the right hon. Gentleman was that the committee does not deal with policy. He said that the Board of Trade lays down general principles and issues general directions, and the committee acts within them. At times I am astonished at the right hon. Gentleman, who rather prides himself on being an economic expert. I am always of the opinion that he is years behind the times in most of his thoughts, and he is certainly years behind the times about this. One thing above all which has been pointed out by economists equally eminent as the right hon. Gentleman, if not more so, is that unemployment in this country cannot be solved on general principles and by blanket policies applicable all over the country. Professor Cairncross pointed this out in respect of Scotland years ago. The right hon. Gentleman should read the professor's Report. It might help him to do some new thinking. I quoted Professor Peacock

tonight, who comes to exactly the same conclusion in the current number of Lloyds Bank Review. Many economists have shown how futile overall blanket policies of the Government applicable to every corner of the United Kingdom are.
The right hon. Gentleman still complacently says that the committee does not decide anything about policy; the Government issue general directions. That is the curse of the Government's policy. That is why road development in the Highlands was held up and Scottish unemployment allowed to worsen during the credit squeeze. The Government were applying principles all over the country based on a situation which existed in London and the Midlands. That is a fantastic policy for a Government to pursue.
The right hon. Gentleman should shake his economic ideas up a little and give this subject some fresh thought. If within the general directions given to the D.A.T.A.C. committee it is asked to take special considerations into account, would not that be better done by a separate committee for the different areas? A separate committee would be better able to apply special considerations more applicable to its area.
It was typical of the slipshod thinking of the right hon. Gentleman that he should say that remoteness is the same anywhere. He said in reply to me, "The hon. Gentleman mentioned remoteness, but of course the problem of remoteness is the same everywhere." Of course it is not, but he does not seem to realise that. The remoteness of the Western Isles or the Shetlands is different from the remoteness of North or Central Wales and the problems in connection with it are quite different. The factors to be considered in dealing with remoteness are different. That is the kind of slipshod argument with which the right hon. Gentleman comes to the Box and insults the Committee by advancing. He insults the intelligence of hon. Gentlemen by coming to the Dispatch Box and expecting them to accept that kind of argument. We expect the President of the Board of Trade to give a better reply than that to a reasoned case.
In moving the Amendment, I did not plead Scotland's needs only, but argued the case as being applicable to both


Wales and Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman did not even try to reply to one of the arguments advanced. There are different conditions in these countries. The question is whether they are likely to be better considered by committees concerned only with England, with Wales and with Scotland, or by a United Kingdom committee.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he thinks that a United Kingdom committee is likely to take these matters into consideration more effectively than are separate committees? We are entitled to reasons—not just this leaning pleasantly on the Dispatch Box and saying that the committee does not deal with policy or anything like that. That was not the argument. Incidentally, it is rather shocking that after a debate that has now lasted for two hours, a Minister should expect a Division without his even replying to what has been said. That is not the way in which to treat the House of Commons.
The President of the Board of Trade may have a very good opinion of himself and think that what is said by myself and by my hon. Friends is not worth answering, but we beg to differ, and as long as we are able we shall do our best to make him face the fact that we at least expect a reply to the very powerful and cogent arguments put forward in the debate.

Mr. Maudling: I shall be glad to add another word before the Division which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has promised us. I am sorry if my leaning on the Dispatch Box offends him. I hasten to say that his remarks about myself do not offend me in the least. I take them at the value that one should put on most of his remarks.
Having listened carefully to the speeches, I am all the more convinced that it would be wrong to accept this Amendment. It would be contrary to one of the fundamental principles of the Bill. As I pointed out, in an earlier discussion on this matter today—when some representatives of England, apart from myself, took part—it was, I think, agreed all round that this was not a subject for discrimination between England, Wales and Scotland. An unemployed man has just as much right to the care or help

of the Government whether he lives on the Merseyside, the North-East, in Scotland or in Wales—

Mr. Manuel: That is not the point.

Mr. Maudling: My point is that we have agreed that there should not be discrimination in these cases, and that applications should be dealt with on the basis of the facts of each instance, irrespective of whether the instance arises in England, Wales or Scotland. Therefore, when we have an advisory committee, one must take into account what it is doing. It has to consider individual applications, and will let us know what it recommends, in accordance with the directions on policy that the Government will issue. The committee, taking into account the circumstances, will have to advise whether an undertaking is likely to be viable over a period, and how much money and support it will need to get under way.
11.0 p.m.
Those two things must be determined on the facts, and not on whether the undertaking is setting up in England, Scotland or Wales. If we were to give the impression that the applications were determined, not on the facts of the unemployment and of the business but on whether it was in England, Wales or Scotland, we should do radical damage to the purpose of the Bill. I want to make that point to hon. Members opposite with all the vigour I can. The purpose of the committee is to get all the information it can get, and it must have all the information possible. It will get all that information—perhaps in part through the regional controllers of the Board of Trade—but, having got all the information, it must decide individual cases in the light of the general directions issued by the Government and on the basis of the facts of individual cases irrespective of the geographical location be it Scotland, England or Wales.
I think that for these reasons, which seem to me adequate reasons, it would be fundamentally wrong and would cause damage to the working of the Bill if we accepted these Amendments, and that is why, if the hon. Member forces a Division, I shall go into the Lobby against him.

Mr. G. Thomas: The President of the Board of Trade would not give way


when I wanted to ask a reasonable question, and I feel not at all uneasy in enlarging upon the question I proposed to ask him. Lack of courtesy is not what we usually expect from him. I want to ask whether he is satisfied that there is no discrimination against either Wales or Scotland in view of the present composition of the advisory committee he has announced. He has told us that there will be three Scots, I think, and one Welshman on this committee. I do not know how many Englishmen he requires to advise him, but is he really satisfied that one man will be able to advise him on all the Welsh problems and that he will never be in danger of acting on inadequate information?

Mr. Maudling: I think the hon. Member misunderstood my point. There will be three Scots and a Welshman on the committee and two or three Englishmen, but my point was that they are not on the committee because they are Scots or Welsh but because they are the best people to advise us on these matters. I think the hon. Member will find that these are matters dealt with by accountants, and I always find that wherever two or three accountants are gathered together there appears to be a predominance of Scotsmen.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the point about the time-lag, the time taken to produce results. In view of the fact that he presented us with a pretty dismal picture of what happened in the last year and that the Bill's powers are to last only seven times as long, it is important that there should be expeditious decision by the advisory committee. Is the right hot. Gentleman satisfied that what he suggests will be adequate, compared with the three committees we suggest, and that the committee will act adequately and without discrimination in the exercise of its powers?

Mr. Maudling: There has been a great load on the committee, but I think it has very much speeded up recently.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 10, after "committee)", insert:
or in the case of Wales, a Welsh advisory committee"—[Mr. 1. Davies.]

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(FUNCTIONS OF MANAGEMENT CORPORATIONS.)

Mr. Maudling: I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, to leave out from "Corporation" to "other" in line 41.
This is merely a technical matter. Subsection (5) at present provides that any receipts of a Management Corporation "under the foregoing provisions" of the Clause shall be paid over to the Board of Trade. It has, however, emerged that there may possibly be receipts arising from other sources. One example is in the transfer of rights effected by Clause 13 (2). Clearly any receipts from such other miscellaneous sources should also be paid over to the Board. It is to cover this point which was not covered in the original drafting that we propose this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(APPLICATION OF PRINCIPAL ENACTMENT TO OFFICES.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the principal enactment and this part of this Act shall apply to offices as they apply to industrial buildings of the prescribed classes.

(2) In relation to offices references in the principal enactment and in section eighteen of this Act to the proper distribution of industry shall have effect as references to the proper distribution of undertakings.

(3) In relation to offices references in section twenty of this Act to industrial floor space shall have the effect as references to office floor space and for the reference to five thousand square feet there shall be substituted a reference to one thousand square feet.

(4) In this section "office" means a building used as an office for any purpose other than as a bank or post office and "office floor space" shall be construed accordingly.—[Mr. Jay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Though the hour is moderately late, we are raising in this new Clause another very substantial point. The purpose of it is to ensure that the Government in future have as much control over office development in the congested areas which are already fully employed as they have already, through the industrial development certificates, over factory development.


Anyone looking at the facts must agree that the office development now going on in London in particular is in danger of defeating some of the main objectives of distribution of industry policy. London, with certain parts of the Midlands, is the main target for the natural drift of industry and additional population today. This very week we have, indeed, witnessed the spectacle of London almost completely choked by traffic in the evening rush hour. This is, perhaps, another warning of what will happen to many of the public services, not merely transport in London, if this gross congestion is allowed to continue.
On Second Reading, I gave some figures, which the Government have not, I think, contested, to show the extent to which increased office employment in London is offsetting the attempts of the Government to restrain increased factory employment. For instance, the London County Council's figures show that, in the three years 1954–57, when factory employment was actually falling in Central London, total employment rose at the rate of 15,000 a year, that is to say, 45,000 in those three years. There can be little doubt that, if office employment continues at that rate in London, the principal congested area, the Government's efforts, such as they are, to restrain total growth of employment in London and the south-eastern region will be very largely defeated.
I think it probable that no Government since the war really foresaw the importance of office employment as compared with industrial employment in our national distribution of industry policy. The industrial development certificates were not applied by the original Acts in the same sense to office employment, and we are, therefore, now facing a situation in which factory development is entirely under the control of the Board of Trade because no new factory or factory extension of more than 5,000 square feet can be built without permission, while, at the same time, office development is not under the control of the Board of Trade at all but is under the control of local authorities through the town planning machinery.
Quite apart from the policy which the Government are or are not pursuing, and, indeed, quite apart from all

party argument on this, I should have thought that there was a major issue here to be examined. Have we really our machinery right, and is it possible to maintain control of distribution of industry policy? The Government are able to refuse permission, quite rightly, to the Ford Motor Company to extend its factory employment in the London area, but they have not the same power or machinery to prevent someone putting up an office block to employ another 5,000 people, which, of course, has exactly the same effect on employment and congestion in the area.
The situation is quite anomalous. I do not think that any Government can claim fully to have understood or foreseen this situation, and I am not making a party point. The anomaly is even greater than at first sight appears because, unless I have misunderstood, there is this further curious situation.
If the Parliamentary Secretary refuses one of the motor companies an industrial development certificate to build a large new factory in the London or Midlands regions, no question arises of the Board of Trade or any other authority having to pay compensation because permission is refused, yet if the L.C.C., the relevant authority for this development, refuses permission for one of these property companies to erect an office to employ the same number of people, a large financial liability falls on the local authority for compensation as a result of that refusal. This is the situation as a result of various amendments of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which the present Government and their predecessor introduced.
It is surely exceedingly anomalous that there should be no direct coordination of the policy decisions of public authorities as between industrial and office employment and that, on top of that, when a local authority tries to act in the matter of office employment as the Board of Trade would act for factory development it may be restrained by the very heavy compensation which it is expected to pay. I understand that this is quite a pertinent factor.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary not merely to criticise the precise terms of the Amendment but to tell us—what is the substance of this matter—the


Government's policy at present for restraining the growth of office employment, particularly in the London area, how they are using this machinery and what they propose to do. Is it their firm policy to try to apply the same restraint here as at the moment they appear to apply—though not very convincingly according to figures given to me at Question Time last week—in the matter of factory employment?
What is the Government's policy on office employment? Are their views co-ordinated, through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, with those of the local authorities, and do they think that the present machinery is sufficient to get this matter properly into focus? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what the Government seek to do.
I should have thought that there was a possibility here of ensuring that some of these big new offices, perhaps in the case of the larger insurance companies, could be induced to develop not in London or the immediate outskirts but elsewhere. lf, as may be the case, many of them cannot be set up in the remoter areas, might not some of them be suitable for the coastal areas in the South and East where there is no heavy unemployment as in Scotland and Wales but where there is undoubtedly an unemployment problem?
The Labour Government successfully established a large part of the National Insurance Department in Newcastle. The Inland Revenue is largely in Cardiff and, judging by letters that reach me, the Surtax offices are now in Worthing or some such place on the South coast. This suggests that it is not impossible to disperse office employment as well as factory employment. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us what Government policy is, what they mean to do, and whether they think that the present machinery is adequate.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Rodgers: In essence, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), in his new Clause, is asking us to extend the policy of industrial development certificates for industrial buildings of 5,000 square feet and upwards to offices of over 1,000 square feet. Part 1 of the Bill gives us power to assist industrial and non-industrial

development in listed places. It is true that, complementary to the inducements to get people to move, we have I.D.C. powers to control industrial building, but we have not parallel powers in connection with offices. I have used the phrase before, and I apologise for using it again, but in the industrial sphere we have both a carrot and a stick. In the sphere of offices we have only a carrot; we have no stick for them at the Board of Trade.
I should, however, point out that the analogy between office and factory building cannot be pressed too far; and I will try to explain as we go along why that is so. First, offices are seldom "purpose built", whereas factories usually are. Secondly, there is a more rapid turnover in office accommodation than in factory buildings.

Mr. Jay: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "purpose built"? Blocks of offices are surely built purposely as offices.

Mr. Rodgers: That may be, but most office blocks are not for one occupant. Because there is a fairly rapid turnover in the occupation of office buildings the situation arises where—and I know this from my own experience in business—from there being one user there come to be a number of users; the occupation can be split from, say, one into 20 users. Or there may be one office building with lots of small firms in it; and those firms are then bought by one large firm. It follows that if a firm is granted permission to erect an office building there is no assurance at present that it will not be for assignment to some other firm or firms. There is no control over the acquisition of existing premises, whether office or otherwise, and the section dealing with the change of use would have no relevance in this context. If a firm tied to London were forbidden to build its own office, it might not have to wait long before existing suitable premises became available in the London area.
But let us consider some other relevant matters. This is a difficult problem which worries us very much at the Board of Trade. The vast majority of firms are tied, for one reason or another, to the Metropolis; solicitors and accountants and financiers


must be near the centre of London, as producers must be near their market. Sometimes an insurance company, for example, might be able to move further out, to, say, Dorking or Tunbridge Wells. Yet the usual places are within a travelling distance of 30 or 40 miles out so that a van can make the journey there and back in a day.
That is the pattern, usually, when we talk of dispersing these buildings. If we had the power which is suggested in the proposed new Clause we might be able to decant some buildings to the periphery of London, or even further afield; but that would not help to solve local unemployment in Scotland or North-East England, or Wales. The unlikelihood of steering many of these offices to those places must be borne in mind.

Mr. Jay: Yes, but there are the coastal areas in the South and East, and some of these office units could go there. If the Minister could meet their unemployment problems he would not have to steer them there.

Mr. Rodgers: We should be pleased if some of them would move to the East and South Coast resorts, but I do not think that that would be any justification for assuming the power to issue I.D.C.s for office buildings.

Mr. Mitchison: This is only a Clause giving powers. Would not the transfer of some offices to the new towns go a long way to solve their juvenile employment problems? Is not that exactly what Harlow, for instance, is trying to achieve?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree that this is desirable. I am trying to argue that it is difficult to achieve by the methods suggested in the proposed new Clause.
It should always be remembered that most office building is speculative, as I said earlier, and that the eventual occupants are not known when the building is erected. Should all office building be banned until the potential tenants are lined up, there could be chaos in the commercial life of the country. In any case, if we adopted that method we should have to get all the potential occupants lined up and then grant 20 or more I.D.C.s to the individual occupants before new offices could be constructed.

The chances are that the eventual occupants would be people who were tied to London anyway, and occupying office space already in London which was not so convenient.
The offices which would be vacated in this way would be taken over by firms occupying even less suitable accommodation. If office building were prohibited and equivalent building permitted on the periphery some firms whose desire for better accommodation outweighed other considerations would go there. That would not help to solve the unemployment problems in Scotland and Wales and parts of England. The chance of moving such firms as far away as that would be remote.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the Board of Trade keep a watch on Government Departments in these days? Is the policy the same as was adopted in 1945, and Government offices and staffs moved out of London wherever possible? Many people said that it would be impossible to work the National Insurance office at Newcastle, but we did.

Mr. Rodgers: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being one of the people behind that move. I was proposing to refer to Government offices as I develop my argument.
I know that there has been criticism in the Press and in Parliament about firms being allowed to build prestige offices in the centre of London, like the Shell building, and the premises of the Egg Marketing Board and A.E.I. But Shell, for example, already occupied offices scattered over London and its employees have merely been collected together under one roof. It makes for the more efficient operation of the company.

Mr. Jay: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that, though that may be true of Shell, it increases the total amount of office employment in London, because someone else is occupying the vacated buildings.

Mr. Rodgers: I agree, and it may be argued that certain offices have been built in London which should not have been erected there. Speaking personally, I regret that the Egg Marketing Board felt it necessary to build a large office block in London. That could well have been situated somewhere else, in my


opinion. But for the Board of Trade to control office building down to 1,000 square feet with the chance of picking up one or two steerable cases, such as the Egg Marketing Board, would be to create a heavy administrative burden for a hypothetical return, and such a move would be likely to damage the efficiency of British business with few compensating advantages.
Although offices do not require I.D.C.s, office building is not unrestricted. Planning permission is required and there are zones where office building is prescribed. Office building in Central London and other large cities has helped to create traffic congestion and to overload the transport system. It is true that more office buildings would add to this. But, essentially, it is a planning matter. To move offices from the centre of London to Kew, or further afield, may be good planning, but it is no good as a solution for local unemployment problems
Action has been and is being taken to restrain excessive office building in London. First, in areas allocated to office use in the development plans are restricted. Secondly, a policy of withholding consent to proposals to use residential buildings as offices even in areas allocated for office buildings is included in the development plans. Thirdly, as the right hon. Member said, nearly 40,000 of the headquarters staff of Government Departments are now located outside London and arrangements are being made for any further moves to be considered from the viewpoint of local employment before a decision is reached.
I can assure the right hon. Member and his hon. Friends that we are well aware of and worried about this problem. I assure him that ever since I have occupied my present post we have looked from time to time at the possibility of extending industrial development certificates to offices, but we have rejected that for two reasons. First, there were no grounds for thinking that such a system could be sensibly administered, and, secondly, to do so would be to risk harming the efficiency of the country's economic life. We must rely on persuasion and we believe that in the long run that will be the best way of getting offices to move into areas where they are

needed. We have added inducements to try to persuade firms that it would be in their interests to go to areas of high unemployment.
For these reasons, I ask the right hon. Member to withdraw the proposed new Clause, or the Committee to reject it.

Mr. T. Fraser: Some of the things the Parliamentary Secretary has said have surprised me greatly. As he neared the end of his speech he made it abundantly clear that he regarded offices as making a bigger contribution to the economic life of the country than our production units in industry, yet he sought to infer that to interfere with the location of offices would be to interfere unnecessarily with our economic life. I should have thought that one interfered more with economic life if one took decisions not to allow great industrial development in certain areas and required industrialists who are producing the things by which the country lives to be squeezed into other parts. He said that cannot be done with offices because of the effect on our economic life.
The hon. Gentleman was very concerned that at that part of his speech he should not be thought of as speaking as the Parliamentary Secretary. but speaking personally. That was when he said that it was a bad thing that the Egg Marketing Board had put up a vast office block in London. What did he think as Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade? Did he think it an equally bad thing? If so, why does he not take this new Clause and refuse permission to put up unnecessary and objectionable office blocks in London?
The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that in a great many debates in recent years, when he and his hon. Friends have been quoting to me and my hon. and right hon. Friends the amount of factory building in London in relation to the rest of the country, we have replied by calling attention to the fact that, in addition to the jobs provided in factory buildings and industrial buildings he was permitting by I.D.C.s, we had a great increase in employment in shops and offices, particularly in offices, which seemed to be going on in London unchecked by the Government. We said that that employment had to be added to the employment provided in industrial


buildings in order to get a fair comparison with the rest of the country. If we did that we found that London continued to be a great magnet for population from all over the country.
A lot has been said about the perimeter and fringe areas, but the further ones gets from London the more difficult it is to find employment. It seems that the Parliamentary Secretary accepts that in this great Metropolis we must have all, or virtually all, the office building. The Parliamentary Secretary congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on the part he played in moving the administrative headquarters of the Ministry of National Insurance up to Newcastle. He knows full well that twenty years ago hon. and right hon. Members who think as he does would not have believed it possible to take a great administrative machine away from the centre of London. In 1940, it was not believed possible to take a great administrative machine like the Ministry of National Insurance away from London and establish it elsewhere in the country.
11.30 p.m.
If a Government Department can do that—I wish that more of them would do it—I do not see why other people who must have big administrative offices cannot equally do it. The Parliamentary Secretary said that we could not push them further than 30 or 40 miles from the centre of London—a convenient run for a van. What has a van got to do with the matter? The aeroplane has been in existence for quite a long time now and we also have trains. It is just as quick to travel from Scotland by train. If goods are put on a train in Scotland at night they can be taken off in London the next morning. It does not take very much longer than if they have to be brought 40 miles to London by road transport and then are held up for a considerable time through traffic congestion before reaching their destination in the centre of London.
We are not concerned in the Bill just with planning considerations. The Parliamentary Secretary said that this was a planning consideration. We have not approached the subject as a planning matter at all. In putting forward this new Clause we are concerned with the

better distribution of employment about the country. By accepting the Clause the Parliamentary Secretary would not be placing any obligation upon his right hon. Friend to refuse every application for permission to erect offices in Central London. Of course, there would be cases where it would be quite wrong to refuse such permission. But, on the other hand, there would also be cases—the hon. Gentleman himself mentioned one—where it would be right to refuse permission.
Once the Minister had this power his attention would be called to very many office blocks in London which ought never to have been put up in London at all. A great deal of the work that is being sucked into London from other parts of the country ought not to be here at all. The hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary probably represents more office blocks than any other hon. Member at present, built since he and his right hon. Friends took office in 1951. We take the view that this is unnecessary.
There are far too many unemployed in different parts of the country who only get a job when they take the advice of the local officer of the Ministry of Labour and buy a single ticket on the railway which enables them to be deposited at Euston, St. Pancras or King's Cross and to get a job in an office very nearby. It is not good for the country's economic life, and it is disastrous for its social life, that this kind of thing should go on.
It is for these reasons that we plead with the Minister and his colleagues to have another look at the matter. We all know that there is a diminishing proportion of the working population engaged in industrial processes and an increasing proportion engaged in office work, in administration. With all our improvements in industrial technique, this process will continue.
In rejecting the new Clause the Parliamentary Secretary is saying that he and his right hon. Friends will take no power to prevent this great Metropolis from growing bigger and bigger and from taking an ever-increasing share of the nation's population. In other parts of the Bill he is taking power, by repeating provisions in the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and other Acts, to spread


the industrial population, but that is a diminishing share of the total population, and he is taking no power to distribute the increased proportion of the nation's working population. If he has set out to achieve a better distribution of employment in this country, then he is making a mistake in rejecting the new Clause. His right hon. Friend has given the impression in earlier discussions that he is setting out to bring about a better distribution of employment over the whole of Great Britain.
We all know that there are many office jobs which do not need to be in London but which could equally well be in other parts of the country, where there is a good deal of unemployment. A lot of employment is provided in the big insurance offices and other offices which might equally well be provided elsewhere. I could say that it might equally well be provided in Glasgow, but in the presence of some of my hon. Friends representing Glasgow I will say that it might preferably be provided not in Glasgow, but in East Kilbride, or the new town of Cumbernauld, for example. They are not far from airports. People could get to London in a short time, if need be.
In any case, the telephone has been in existence for a long time, and it is frequently used. The Joint Under-Secretary of State can get in touch with his Departments in Edinburgh at any hour of any day, and he does so regularly. His office does it every day of the week, for his staff are in regular contact with St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh. In the same way, the other offices which I have mentioned could keep in touch with headquarters in London with the greatest ease, and headquarters could keep in touch with the administrative offices in various parts of the country, such as the North-East of England, Wales, Cornwall, East Kilbride, Cumbernauld or Dundee.
I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he will look at this matter again. If he is not willing to take this negative power in relation to employment provided in offices in London, he will cause many of us to believe that he is not in earnest when he says that the purpose of the Bill is to achieve a better distribution of employment.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I should very much like to see a great many offices steered out of London into unemployment areas,

but I believe that the number of offices so steerable is relatively few. To set up an administrative scheme which gave the Board of Trade power to look into every single application to build an office of more than 1,000 square feet would be to involve a cost not commensurate with the results obtained. That is why I cannot hold out the hope, for which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser) asked, that I would look into the matter again.

Mr. Jay: Is it not the case that under the planning powers, which are what validate the industrial planning certificates, it is already necessary to obtain permission to build offices? After his incredibly negative speech, will not the Parliamentary Secretary at least give us an assurance that it is the Government's policy and intention to restrain excessive office development in the London area? Is he going back even on that policy?

Mr. Rodgers: It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but we will do all we can to persuade large office users such as insurance companies to take as many of their staff out of London as possible. Beyond that I cannot go.

Mr. T. Fraser: How will the hon. Gentleman know that insurance companies propose to expand in London? I wish that his hon. Friends would show a little concern for the better employment of our people. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he would use his good offices with insurance companies and the like to persuade them not to build in London. He will never know that they propose to build in London unless he takes power to require them to ask him for permission to erect offices. Then if there is a case for the building of an office in London which he cannot resist he will concede the application.
The hon. Gentleman seems to think that there will be cases where he would be serving the interests of all concerned by seeking to persuade them to go elsewhere. If he believes that he is fully justified in that, he must think it socially undesirable that they should build in London. If it is socially undesirable in London, he should take power to enable him to act to ensure that they go to where he and his right hon. Friend think they should go in the interests of


all concerned. [Interruption.] There is much muttering on the bench below the Gangway. I hope that I am not keeping hon. Gentlemen out of bed. This happens to be a matter of very great importance to very many of our people in different parts of the country.
All we seek is to persuade right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially the Ministers responsible for the Bill, that employment is important, whether it is employment in offices or in factories. As an increasing number of our people are employed in offices and a diminishing proportion in factories, it is important at this time that there should be some control. If it is accepted that there should be control over the distribution of factory employment, it is desirable that there should be some measure of control over the distribution of office employment.
The Parliamentary Secretary conceded that he would be willing to use his good offices with insurance companies and other large employers of office workers, but he knows full well that under the present law and in the absence of a provision such as contained in the new Clause he will not know when such bodies are proceeding to build additional office accommodation. In any

case, if he thinks it right that he should use his ministerial powers to persuade them to go elsewhere, why should he not take the power, if he cannot direct them to go elsewhere, at least to tell them where they shall not go. Let him take the power. We cannot say how often he will exercise it. If the figure of 1,000 square feet is wrong, let him specify an area which he thinks would not impose too heavy an administrative burden on his office. If the administrative burden will be as great as he said, it emphasises even more clearly the extent of office building taking place in the already congested parts of the country.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see that he has trapped himself. If the handling of this creates an administrative problem of such magnitude that he could not justifiably recruit the staff to do it, it is an indication of the extent to which this kind of additional new employment is being provided in a part of the country which is least in need of new employment. Let him take this power so that he may with a little talk and persuasion steer some of this employment to areas where it is much more needed.

Question put and negatived.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), to be considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COAL, NORTHERN IRELAND (COST AND QUALITY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

11.44 p.m.

Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: Tonight, I want to raise a matter of very great importance to Northern Ireland—the cost and the quality of the coal that is sent there. That is a very vexed question. It has been the subject of numerous debates, Motions and Questions in the Northern Ireland House of Commons, and tonight I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to clarify the situation, and show his determination to help Northern Ireland in this matter of coal costs and quality.
On average, we import 25,000 tons of coal, and approximately 80 per cent. of the house coal comes from the East and West Midlands and the North-East Divisions. From the pitheads of those places, the f.o.b. charges on domestic coal are 25s. 7d. a ton, and on industrial coal the charge is 17s. 6d. On top of that there is the shipping factors' charge of 9d., and 14s. for sea freight. Those are very high costs indeed. In fact, the pithead cost is only half that of the coal when it arrives at the consumer's coal bin.
I have heard many reasons advanced for Northern Ireland having to have coal from the places I have mentioned which are a long way from a suitable port, but I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why so little heed has been paid to our needs in this matter. We are very greatly concerned about it, and it causes very considerable difficulties in regard to both the domestic and the industrial use of coal.
Again, why was the Ayrshire coal contract for the supply of industrial coal to Northern Ireland summarily removed to the East Midlands? Is that policy to continue? Next, what is the situation regarding the development of the new Ayrshire pits which would be so valuable to Scotland and to Northern Ireland? Supplies from them would mean short sea journeys, and to get much coal at a price we are able to pay would lead to greater benefit on both sides of the water.
When can one hope for some genuine consideration of the question of coal cost and quality? The subject has been discussed for many years now, and the Parliamentary Secretary well knows that committees have been set up to report in Northern Ireland, and that everything possible has been done to investigate the problem on our side. It all goes back to what happens between the coal leaving the pit and its arrival on the quayside in Northern Ireland.
Over those charges we have absolutely no control; in fact, we appear to have no choice as to where the coal shall come from. Cynics in Northern Ireland say that we were forgotten when the divisions of the Coal Board were being created and it was decided what part of the United Kingdom should draw its coal from where. The coal is too dear, and, in many cases, too poor. One of the things we hear day after day in Northern Ireland is, "We wouldn't really mind paying for it if it was first-class when we got it." We have, of course, to take many grades and varieties all lumped together, and many things that are not good coal lumped in with what is supposed to be good coal—

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that that is a state of affairs peculiar to Ulster. Is it not the fact that there is widespread dissatisfaction throughout England and Wales about both the price and the poor quality of coal?

Mrs. McLaughlin: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am not, of course, suggesting that this merely affects Northern Ireland, but it is in that part of the United Kingdom that I am particularly interested.
The average Ulster family likes to enjoy an open fire. It is a traditional part of our way of life. Today, however, the average housewife is becoming "fed up" with dirty coal at high prices. The fashion in coal fires could fall off very quickly—so quickly, in fact, that it could never be retrieved—and I notice that it is happening already. More and more families are turning to other kinds of heating, especially those lucky enough to be going into new houses which they are building or buying. Oil-fired central heating is becoming more popular, and


gas and electric heating are being used much more.
I am aware that our gas and electricity at present are made from coal, but in the near future we expect to have a new electric power plant in Northern Ireland and I understand it is to be the first oil-fired one. That will be only the first move in what will be a change in what we use coal for and what we shall stop using it for, and I do not doubt that in due course atomic energy will take over, too.
I believe that the day is fast coming when the National Coal Board will be even more anxious than it is today that people should buy coal. Belfast Corporation is now building flats which have no open hearth at all, and that project is only the first of many such schemes. If the coal fire is to disappear altogether in Northern Ireland there will be a very big drop in demand for coal, and that will be a disadvantage to the coal mining industry in general. We in Northern Ireland are very conscious of the value of coal to employment, and we know how important it is that the coal which is mined should be used and not continually stockpiled, with the consequent danger of miners becoming redundant.
Ulster people, least of all, would wish to see anyone lose his job unnecessarily, but we know that if we are to go on buying coal, and if Ulster industry is to go on working on coal, something will have to be done about cost. Far too many people in Ulster today, living on small fixed incomes, including old-age pensioners, find the cost of coal a very heavy burden indeed and a great strain on their means. In fact, many old people do not use that amount of coal which we reckon is necessary to keep them in comfort in their homes. It is because the cost is so high that it is too great for them, and it makes the cost of living in general for those people higher than it ought to be.
Would it not be possible for Northern Ireland to buy coal at a more economic price? I know that we are tied to British coal. Could it not be sold to Northern Ireland either at the export or the domestic price, whichever be the cheaper at the time? I am aware that there are many arguments against this, but after

all, Eire enjoys at present the export price which happens to be cheaper than the domestic rate. I know she had for years been paying a higher rate because it was higher than the domestic rate, but Eire is not part of the United Kingdom, and yet she has all the trading advantages of the United Kingdom.
Could not Ulster be considered in the light of her special needs, including the need to increase employment, and in the light of the expense of shipping and all the particularly difficult problems of being separated from the rest of the United Kingdom by that strip of water? Could she not be considered especially in this matter? Would it not be possible to do something on the lines that I suggest?
This would be the greatest single aid that Her Majesty's Government could give to Northern Ireland at present, for it would reduce the cost of coal by anything up to 25s. a ton, and that would be a great help to our coal-burning industries, to our householders, and, indeed, to everyone. We have no natural resources. We must import all our fuel. There must be something done to ensure that we want to go on importing coal. If the Minister wants us to use coal we shall have to have some help in this matter, because I can assure him that a change is coming, like a turning of the tide, in our fuel consumption. The people of Northern Ireland have themselves been talking about this a long time. There has been discussion and there have been reports upon it. But there has been no action. I can feel the change which is taking place, particularly among the younger generation, who say, "Why bother with fuel which is dirty? Why bother ourselves with the trouble of it and the cost of it? We must have something else, even though it may not perhaps be as cosy." When that attitude spreads in an area, it is very hard to change it, and to retrieve the damage it can do.
There is another problem I should like to ask my hon. Friend about. Eire has her coal at present at the export price. What happens in Londonderry, where coal for Ulster and Donegal in Eire comes into the same quayside? Are there two prices at the quayside, one for coal for Donegal and one for coal for Ulster? How do they differ?


The Robson Committee, which reported while the coal controls were still in force, was not certain then about the height of prices, or, indeed, whether they were much too high at that time; but the Isles Report said definitely that they were too high. The Domestic Coal Liaison Committee, which is still in action, is greatly concerned at the high prices prevailing, and it said that there was a significant drop in demand.
To prevent that fall in demand continuing, something determined will have to be done. It is no use fobbing us off time after time with the argument that it is not possible to get the coal we used to have, that it cannot come from pits which used to produce it for us, and nothing can be done. I do not pretend that we can go back to conditions in 1939 or even to conditions immediately after the war, but surely there must be some means of transporting the coal to the quayside in Northern Ireland without exorbitant transport costs. Surely we can have the coal, good coal, despite all the complications of groupings and gradings, and have it delivered at economic prices.
I have not time to go into the details of the matter. It is a long and vexed question. But I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who knows a great deal about the subject, will be aware of all the complications of gradings and groupings which make it extremely hard for the Northern Ireland consumer to understand the continuing high price he has to pay for coal of poor quality. These things are difficult to understand. Indeed, many people find them beyond their comprehension.
Somehow or other, people in Northern Ireland have got into their heads the idea that automation in the mines has revolutionised coal mining. In fact, instead of helping us, it has hindered us. Is it impossible to sort out this problem and send good coal to us from pits as close as possible to Garston and other suitable ports and, in that way, reduce the cost of transport, helping the consumer at the other end in reducing his differential in the cost of industrial work? It would help us, incidentally, to set up more industries in Northern Ireland and thereby increase employment. This is a very important factor.
All these points are quite straightforward, but, since the introduction of automation, we have been told that pits which previously produced coal for us no longer can do so, the type of coal is no longer suitable, and so on. Either there is some completely muddled thinking somewhere now, or there was completely muddled planning at the beginning. Somehow, we must bring back confidence to the Northern Ireland consumer. He must feel that his interests are being considered and his welfare is being protected.
In spite of the difficulties, would it be possible to stock coal in Northern Ireland? Is there any specific reason why it should not be done there as it is done in other parts of the United Kingdom? Would there be any advantage in this? It is a point which has been put on many occasions, and there has never been any informed answer on it.
I await my hon. Friend's reply anxiously. I trust that he will not fob me off with the usual replies and stock answers. I hope he can show that he is in command of the situation. There must be a remedy. Something simply must be done. I assure my hon. Friend that anything that can be done will be well repaid, for Northern Ireland will recognise that she is receiving not sympathy but practical assistance from Her Majesty's Government on this very real problem.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and hon. Members present were impressed by the case advanced by the hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin). I am deeply interested in one aspect of the case. I do not wish unduly to detain the House, or prevent her from receiving a very full reply from the Parliamentary Secretary.
There has been great discontent in Ayrshire following the discontinuance of export of coal from Ayr harbour to Northern Ireland, a traditional market for our county. This is tending to increase unemployment among railwaymen and dock workers, and it will have an impact on the new mining township being built up at Drongen because less coal will be required from that area.


Ayrshire coal compares most favourably with the coal now being received from the East Midlands. I have been reliably informed that the cost of the rail haul from the East Midlands to the port of shipment to Northern Ireland is very nearly three times more than the cost of the haul from the Ayrshire coalfield to Ayr harbour and that, therefore, there must be appreciably higher costs at the Irish end on the coal now being delivered.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be more forthcoming. The hon. Gentleman has an Ayrshire background, an intense interest in Ayrshire matters, and a knowledge of Ayrshire mining traditions. He knows the coalfield and the Ayrshire miners with whom he worked in very close association for many years. His arguments must have terrific force if it is to repeal the argument on difference in costs which is reflected in the price of the coal which is now being sold in Northern Ireland. I hope that the position will be reconsidered.
I feel that the situation is easier now and that the Parliamentary Secretary could be more forthcoming with a view to giving all-round satisfaction not only in Ayrshire but to consumers in Northern Ireland who are not as satisfied with East Midlands coal as they were with Ayrshire supplies.

12.2 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): The House is always glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin). She has put her case in a pleasant, moderate and eloquent way. The earnestness of her pleading and the ingenuity of her argument command my admiration, but they cannot command my agreement. She has raised some questions, for example, the difference between the price of coal today in Northern Ireland and in Eire, to which she has herself given the answers.
In the postwar years Eire paid a high price for its coal, because Eire was treated as a foreign country. Northern Ireland is part of the home market and is charged the home price and, therefore, it had the benefit over those years. Now,

things have changed, because the National Coal Board is having a great fight to retain its hold in the export markets, and the price in Eire is below that in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend has made the ingenious or ingenuous suggestion that the Northern Ireland price should always be the lower price. I really do not think that she meant that to be a serious suggestion.
Northern Ireland, as I have said, is part of the home market and has that market's advantages and disadvantages. The export trade has swings of the pendulum and the prices we get when the market is high help to make up for prices when the markets fall. Therefore, I cannot support that suggestion of my hon. Friend in any way. My hon. Friend raised the question of the Ayrshire contract and I understood that she was talking mainly about household coal, but the Ayrshire contract has nothing to do with household coal. This is purely a transfer of industrial coals for one customer from Ayr to another port. The transfer, when it was made, had the complete agreement of the customer who was not in any way at a disadvantage and was not dissatisfied with the change.
The transfer was made because, in the Midlands, there was a situation in which mines might have to be closed because of lack of space to stock coal. There were heavy stocks in the Midlands and practically no stocks in Scotland. In the East Midlands they were 9¼ million tons, in Scotland 940,000 tons, and in Ayrshire 88,000 tons. The latest figures show that, even with the switch from Scotland to the Midlands, stocks in the East Midlands are 10,540,000 tons, in Scotland 1,350,000 tons and in Ayrshire 84,000 tons, and no change in employment has taken place in the Scottish coalfields as a result of this switch.
The Coal Board must be allowed to operate the industry as a whole and to see where the best advantage lies at any given time. This change was made reluctantly, and, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has said, it was the natural market for Scotland. I can only give the assurance that the Coal Board will keep in mind the traditional exports from Ayrshire to Northern Ireland.


My hon. Friend also asked about costs and, of course, this Scottish coal would come at a freight rate of 12s. a ton, against 25s. 7d. from the Midlands. That is that side of the picture; but it is ten years since Scotland played any significant part in sending house coal to Northern Ireland. All the house coal produced in Scotland is used there, and some used there has to come from England.
There is nothing which can be done yet. All that I can say to my hon. Friend tonight is that there is new development in the Ayrshire coalfields. I was down Killoch, one of the new pits, a few weeks ago, and development there is going ahead speedily. Of course, there have been some geological troubles experienced, but the job is being pushed on. In one pit, there is a fine seam, 6 feet 6 inches thick, and I can only say I hope that fortune follows the affairs of Killoch and that it can supply Northern Ireland at no distant date.
The hon. Lady speaks of the price of coal, but that has been steady for two years and, therefore, I am surprised that she has not raised that point before now. She asks, too, about a higher quality of coal for Northern Ireland, but she must know that there is no general demand for it. Northern Ireland seeks what is known as Group 5 coal from this country —that is Group 3 in Northern Ireland—and it is reluctant to take any other group. Scotland cannot supply it and Cumberland cannot increase its supply. Northumberland and Cumberland coal, some of which the hon. Lady says, is not acceptable, has been taken in increasing tonnage, which stands at present at 140,000 to 150,000 tons a year.

Mrs. McLaughlin: Cumberland coal is Group 4 and is acceptable in Northern Ireland; but only a small proportion comes in.

Mr. George: It is 14 per cent. of the total tonnage with a cheap freight rate. The Northern Ireland Coal Importers' Association has said that the North Western coal is too friable to be imported; it is said that there is too much small coal in it. So we are left with three English areas, the East and West Midlands and the North Eastern, and from those, 86 per cent., or 960,000 tons,

out of a total of 1,110,000 tons came last year.
At present, there is no alternative for Northern Ireland's supplies. As the hon. Lady says, there is a long haul involved, costing 25s. 7d. a ton, but there is just no other source which can supply Northern Ireland with Group 5 coal. If she can do something to induce the Irish importers to take other qualities—of course, at higher prices—that would be something which would go a long way towards getting better coal in her country.
The Coal Board has gone to very great lengths since 1947 in the matter of treating coal. On this particular subject, I think that, since it has spent vast sums on new screening and washing plant, and so on, the coal is being delivered to the markets today in far better condition than it ever was in the past.
Regarding the inherent qualities of the coal, we are seeing the old trouble. Seams which have been worked out are being succeeded by less satisfactory seams. That is happening in coalfields all over the world. The good seams are dying out and being replaced by less satisfactory seams, but I deny that there is any fault in the preparation of the coal for the Irish market by the Coal Board.
My hon. Friend said that coal is being used to a lesser degree, and, unfortunately, that is true not only in Northern Ireland. It is a serious matter throughout the United Kingdom. It is just that the fashion has spread to Northern Ireland. I assure the hon. Lady that the Coal Board values the Northern Ireland market and will make every effort to satisfy the demand from that market. The output per manshift in the mines is rising steadily. The price has been steady for two years and that is an important achievement.
The only way to reduce prices in the future is to increase the efficiency of deep mining. That is being done. Month by month we see an improvement in the pits. The only hope for better quality coal for Northern Ireland at cheaper freight rates is when the new Scottish pits begin to help to close the present gap in the supplies to Ireland. I have no doubt that the quality of the coal from these new pits, which include


seams which Ireland knew and liked so well in the past, will remove some of the worries which exist there today.
My hon. Friend made repeated assertions that the people of Ireland are complaining about the coal being dirty and dear. I made inquiries and I could find neither frequent nor serious complaints.

Mrs. McLaughlin: I can give my hon. Friend plenty of evidence of complaints.

Mr. George: I have no doubt that is true, but they are not on record. There is no record of frequent or serious complaints about quality. I repeat that the Coal Board has spent many millions of pounds in making provision to prepare the coal for the market in a far better way than ever before.
My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of stocking coal in Northern Ireland. That is scarcely an economic proposition. It is costly enough to stock at the collieries, but to transport the coal across the Irish Sea and to lay it down again in Northern Ireland would be a totally unacceptable proposition.
We have had some trouble in Northern Ireland in the last month or two over the shortage of supplies and there has been some criticism of the Coal Board in that respect. It is true that for several reasons the Board did not sell to Northern Ireland the amount of coal which we should like in the summer. In fact, only 374,000 tons were sold, which was 100,000 tons less than the average for the previous three years. That is roughly six weeks' supply which Northern Ireland did not have when it was needed most. But

if my hon. Friend can use her influence wherever possible to ensure that summer supplies are taken in, the worries we have had this year about supplies and coal being too dear or too dirty will not exist in the years that lie ahead.
It has been asked why summer prices cannot apply to Northern Ireland. In this country, coal is sold £1 cheaper in the summer, and winter prices are restored in October. That does not apply in Northern Ireland, but the Board is willing to consider the extension of the summer prices scheme to Northern Ireland. Perhaps that could be a matter of discussion by my hon. Friend with her constituents.
I am sorry not to be able to cover all the points raised by my hon. Friend. I must repeat that the price of coal has been steady for two years. The high cost to Northern Ireland, as she rightly said, results in large measure from the accident of geography, but the Coal Board values the market and is doing everything in its power to produce coal cheaper in this country. It will as quickly as possible switch supplies to Northern Ireland from ports where coal is available at a cheaper freight rate in the years that lie ahead.

Mrs. McLaughlin: Does my hon. Friend take into account the fact that all coal bought by Northern Ireland merchants must be paid for at—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.